BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Third Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 29 October (Standing Order No. 20).

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 29 October (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Tobacco Products (Standardised Packaging)

Gavin Shuker: If he will bring forward legislative proposals to introduce standardised packaging of tobacco products.

Jane Ellison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have decided to wait before making a decision on standardised packaging, but the policy remains under active consideration. As he can imagine, I have spent much of the past two weeks, as I get to know my brief, looking at that carefully.

Gavin Shuker: I welcome the Minister to her new role. Stirling university’s systematic review of plain packaging concluded that it made cigarettes less attractive and health warnings more effective. Will she give me a straight answer: has she read the report, and if not, why not?

Jane Ellison: The straight answer is that I have not read the whole report, but I have read the summary, and it reaches some interesting conclusions. It is one of a number of interesting new pieces of information and evidence coming forward to support decision making in this policy area, and from work going on in countries right around the world as well as Australia.

Bob Blackman: Three hundred thousand young people a year start smoking, and the tobacco industry’s last vestige of advertising is packaging. Will my hon. Friend, in her new role, look at the proposal very seriously so that we can stop young people starting this terrible habit?

Jane Ellison: Stopping children and young people smoking is a priority for us all; all Members care deeply about the health of their constituents. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we are looking at that very seriously and assessing all the new information available, not just from this country but from around the world.

William Bain: The vast weight of not only expert opinion but of public opinion says that standardised packaging cuts the risk of people taking up smoking. When will the Government act on that and ignore what is coming from the vested interests—the lobbyists and the big tobacco companies—as an excuse for doing nothing?

Jane Ellison: I can only repeat what I have said: I am a new Minister and I am looking at this very carefully. There are interesting new pieces of information coming through all the time to assist us in making public policy in this area. It is under very active consideration.

Paul Burstow: I welcome the Minister to her new role. Will she, when considering the evidence, look at the fact that the tobacco industry, in its marketing and packaging strategies, is aiming at certain markets, particularly children and young people, whom they want to start smoking? Given her desire to ensure that children do not take up the practice, surely she should act on the evidence by ending the existing packaging arrangements and having standardised packaging so that we can deal with this problem.

Jane Ellison: At the risk of repeating myself, all I can say to my right hon. Friend is that I am looking at that very carefully. He is right that we all want to stop children and young people smoking. There is a mass of evidence out there, and we are gaining new evidence and information all the time to help us make decisions. I will continue to look at it as one of the absolute priorities within my brief.

Luciana Berger: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new post. We knew that her predecessor supported standardised cigarette packaging: Labour will table amendments to the Children and Families Bill in the other place and in this place to make that a reality. I have listened to contributions from Members on the Government Benches supporting the policy. Will the Minister tell us today whether she supports standardised packaging?

Jane Ellison: We are very aware of the discussions that have been going on in the other place and the amendments that have come forward, in which we have taken considerable interest. At this stage, we want to look at all the available evidence, because new information is coming through, before coming to a view. I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Lady to her new post.

Maternity Services (Gloucestershire)

Neil Carmichael: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of provision of maternity services in Gloucestershire.

Daniel Poulter: On 12 November last year, I announced the allocation of a £25 million capital fund to the NHS to improve maternity services across the country, and that has supported improvements in 110 maternity care settings. I am pleased to say that, of that figure, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was awarded £150,000 to refurbish the Stroud maternity unit.

Neil Carmichael: I thank the Minister for that encouraging answer. We now have 1,400 new midwives since 2010. Coupled with the very welcome recent investment in Stroud maternity unit, does he agree that this represents a real choice for expectant mothers and an excellent maternity service in general?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that when we came into Government there was a historical shortage of investment in maternity and midwifery care. We now have almost 1,400 more midwives in the work force, training commissions are being maintained at a record high, and we are continuing to invest in on-the-ground capital projects to support the birthing environment for women.

European Working Time Directive

Julian Smith: What assessment his Department has made of the effect of the European working time directive on patient care and the professional development of doctors.

Daniel Poulter: We are aware that concerns exist about the impact of EU legislation on some areas of training and service delivery within the NHS, specifically the impact of the EWTD on patient experience and continuity of care, and the detrimental effect on the quality of training for doctors.

Julian Smith: Harrogate hospital, which serves much of my constituency, suffers very badly from recruitment and retention issues as a result of the working time directive. Does the Minister agree that it, and other areas of social and employment law, should be front and centre of our renegotiation strategy prior to the referendum in 2017?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight some of the concerns that have been raised by the Royal College of Surgeons and other groups about the impact of the European working time directive in medicine. That is why we have tasked the royal college with the job of investigating and doing some work on exactly what the impact is on surgical trainees and elsewhere in the health sector. We look forward to its reporting back, and I hope that that will be very informative for future discussions on other work force regulations.

NHS Trusts (Financial Deficits)

Nick Smith: What estimate he has made of the number of NHS Trusts forecasting a financial deficit at the end of 2013-14.

Daniel Poulter: The Trust Development Authority and Monitor, for foundation trusts, indicate that there will be a financial surplus across the health care provider sector in 2013-14.

Nick Smith: With so many NHS trusts in deficit and many missing their A and E targets, when will the Minister stop blaming everybody else and get a grip on the A and E crisis?

Daniel Poulter: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman used a pre-prepared question and did not listen to my answer. Throughout the health care provider sector, over 80% of trusts and foundation trusts are in financial surplus, and the overall end-of-year forecast is pointing to a surplus of £109 million across the sector. To support hospitals through what can be very difficult winter periods, with flu and other seasonal problems, we have put in place measures including a £500 million fund for winter pressures. That will take the pressure off A and E—unlike in Wales, where the Welsh Administration are cutting the budget for the NHS. In Wales the NHS has failed to meet A and E waiting targets since 2009.

Stephen Dorrell: While I welcome the fact that the provider sector as a whole is in surplus, will my hon. Friend confirm that some trusts are indeed anticipating that they will be running deficits? Will he also confirm that the National Audit Office has estimated that up to 30% of acute hospital admissions would be avoidable if we had properly integrated services, and that that would allow us to deliver not only better financial management but, much more importantly, better quality care for patients?

Daniel Poulter: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that a very small minority—20%—of trusts across the health care provider sector, including trusts and foundation trusts, are anticipating a deficit. Many of those trusts have a direct legacy of debt from the private finance initiative arrangements that the previous Government put in place. That is one of the direct legacies of the poor PFI deals that were arranged. He is absolutely right to highlight the importance of integrated and joined-up health care. That is exactly what the £500 million we are providing for winter pressures is designed to do by focusing on better preventive care to keep people out of hospital.

Nick Brown: Trust balance sheets are bound to be affected by the resources allocated to the commissioning groups. On 12 June last year, I asked the then Minister for
	“a clear assurance that he will not downgrade the importance of economic deprivation in his resource allocation formula”.
	He told the House:
	“Yes, I can give that assurance.”—[Official Report, 12 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 167.]
	Why is the Minister’s Department now consulting on doing precisely what the then Minister said he would not do and taking £230 million out of the budget for the north-east and Cumbria?

Daniel Poulter: The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps misunderstood the information imparted on that occasion. It is very clear that the allocation formula is now independently set and NHS England has primary
	responsibility for it. There is legitimate concern. There is a 10% deprivation weighting for some of the poorest communities in-built into that formula. It is also important that we recognise that demographics and an ageing population are putting pressure on a lot of CCG budgets, but these are matters for NHS England.

Tim Farron: As Morecambe Bay trust seeks to recover from its financial crisis, one of the options put forward by clinicians is for a new, acute hub hospital to be created south of Kendal to improve safety, access and financial efficiencies. It is bound to involve a capital cost to start off with. If the new hub hospital is the option chosen by clinicians, will my hon. Friend give it his backing politically and financially?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend will be aware that this is a matter for local commissioners to decide and it is not for Whitehall to impose solutions on them. There are issues and efficiencies that Morecambe Bay trust can drive by better managing its estate and reducing temporary staffing costs. The hospital and trust will, of course, want to look into those issues in improving their financial outlook and the quality of care they can provide for patients.

Liz Kendall: Whatever the Minister claims, the reality is that the Secretary of State has lost grip of NHS finances just as he has lost grip of the crisis in A and E. Earlier this month, we learned that half of all NHS hospital trusts are now predicting deficits—up from one in 12 last year. As a self-proclaimed champion of openness, will the Minister now commit to publishing those deficit figures monthly and guarantee that all NHS acute trusts will balance their books by the end of the year? It is a simple question—yes or no.

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady is being economical with the figures. I indicated earlier that 70% of trusts and 89% of foundation trusts are predicted to either break even or end the year with a financial surplus. That is hardly a difficult position. Those trusts that have deficits are often a direct legacy of the PFI deals negotiated by the previous Government and the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) when he was Secretary of State. The sector as a whole is predicting £109 million of surplus. That is hardly a deficit. I know that the Labour party is not very good with figures and cannot add up, which is why this country is in such an economic mess, but the figures speak for themselves: £109 million of surplus is predicted for trusts and foundation trusts.

Hospital Trusts (Special Measures)

Martin Vickers: What recent progress he has made on improving the performance of hospital trusts placed in special measures.

Andrew Bridgen: What recent progress he has made on improving the performance of hospital trusts placed in special measures.

John Stevenson: What recent progress he has made on improving the performance of hospital trusts placed in special measures.

Stephen Metcalfe: What recent progress he has made on improving the performance of hospital trusts placed in special measures.

Jeremy Hunt: Significant progress has been made at all 11 trusts placed in special measures in July, including changing the chair or chief executive officer and recruiting more nurses in every single one them and partnering each of them with a high-performing hospital so that they can make rapid progress in turning things around.

Martin Vickers: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. He will be aware of my constituents’ concerns about services at Diana, Princess of Wales hospital in Grimsby. There are doubts about the future of the stroke unit and high mortality rates, and there are also problems with the East Midlands ambulance service. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he is satisfied that progress is being made at the hospital?

Jeremy Hunt: I think good progress is being made and I commend my hon. Friend for his campaigning on the issue. The trust concerned has introduced better privacy for patients, hired 154 nurses since the Keogh report and introduced electronic vital signs reporting at the bedside—all because we are being transparent and open about problems in the NHS and not sweeping them under the carpet.

Andrew Bridgen: Burton hospital, which serves part of my constituency, was one of the 11 hospitals placed in special measures following the Keogh report. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that the improvements needed in those hospitals will be carried out in a culture of openness and transparency rather than one of opaqueness and cover-up, which so unfortunately typified the way in which the previous Government ran the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: I know that my hon. Friend takes a very close interest in what happens at his hospital and I think that progress is being made in turning it around. What will be of concern to my hon. Friend is that, as far back as 2005-6, Burton’s mortality rate was 30% higher than the national average—it was even higher than that at Mid Staffs—and yet the problem was not sorted out. We are sorting it out.

John Stevenson: As the Secretary of State is aware, North Cumbria trust is in special measures. We have on our doorstep a potential solution to our problems, namely Northumbria trust. Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that everything possible will be done to get North Cumbria out of special measures at the earliest opportunity and, much more importantly, that every support will be given to Northumbria in is acquisition of North Cumbria?

Jeremy Hunt: I can give my hon. Friend both assurances because Northumbria has been doing a huge amount to help North Cumbria turn itself around, including installing its patient experience systems to ensure that patients are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.
	The problems have been around since 2007 and he can tell his constituents that we are finally turning them around.

Stephen Metcalfe: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, Basildon university hospital in my constituency is one of the 11 hospitals that were placed in special measures following the failure of the previous Government to act on the information that they had. Will he tell the House what support the new management team, in whom I have great confidence, are receiving and when my constituents can expect to see sustained, long-term improvements?

Jeremy Hunt: I reassure my hon. Friend that the trust has hired 257 more nurses since the problems emerged this year, has better A and E processes, and has been partnered with the Royal Free in London to help it make even more progress. He will be as shocked as I am that when the Care Quality Commission identified problems at that hospital under the last Government, it sat on the report for six months. That cannot be acceptable.

John Healey: How can NHS patients and staff have any confidence in decisions about their local services when they are taken by the Competition Commission on the overriding grounds of what is best for a competitive market and not what is best for patients? Will he learn from the failure of the merger between the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and take merger off the table as an option for Rotherham hospital?

Jeremy Hunt: May I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the competition authorities make their decisions based on what is in the best interests of patients and do not hold competition as an overriding ideology? He is right that we need to work closely with those authorities to ensure that they have the expertise to take decisions in the right way and with trusts to ensure that they have the expertise to ensure that they do not stumble when they go through those processes.

Jenny Chapman: How can the public have confidence in their health service when police officers are taking patients who are sick and injured to A and E because ambulances are backed up outside A and E and take longer than an hour to arrive?

Jeremy Hunt: I will tell the hon. Lady why the public can have confidence in their health service: compared to three years ago, on broadly the same budget, the NHS is doing 800,000 more operations year in, year out; MRSA rates have halved; and the number of people who wait for a year or longer for operations has gone down from 18,000 to fewer than 400.

Clive Efford: Will the Secretary of State explain why we have had a summer crisis in A and E? We are all used to the emergency services being overwhelmed in winter. Given the crisis that we have had, what will he do to assist the NHS in averting a winter crisis this year, rather than just blaming everybody else?

Jeremy Hunt: The figures for September, the last month of the summer, were 95.8% in England and 90.6% in Wales. It was not coalition-controlled England that had a summer A and E crisis, but Labour-controlled Wales.

Andrew Gwynne: The Secretary of State for Health is clearly not adequately monitoring performance. If he was, he would be aware that serious problems remain across the accident and emergency departments of the trusts that were placed in special measures by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh. On his watch, the A and E performance at eight of the 11 trusts has got worse since Keogh reported, including at my hospital in Tameside. The A and E performance has got substantially worse at East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, where the number of patients waiting for more than four hours has doubled since Keogh reported, and at Medway NHS Trust, where the figure has quadrupled. When will he stop all the grandstanding, cut the spin and get a grip on his A and E crisis?

Jeremy Hunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that something is happening under this Government that did not happen under the Labour Government: we are putting those hospitals into special measures and sorting out the problems, including the long-term problems with A and E such as the GP contract—a disaster that was imposed on this country by the Labour Government.

Acute Hospital Wards (Nurse-patient Ratio)

Andrew George: What the current (a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) mean average registered nurse-to-patient ratio is on acute hospital wards.

Daniel Poulter: As my hon. Friend is aware, we do not hold information on registered nurse-to-patient ratios on acute hospital wards. Local hospitals must have the freedom to decide the skill mix of their work force and the number of staff they employ to deliver high-quality, safe patient care.

Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government should be monitoring the situation, but he will be aware of the concern, which I have consistently highlighted, about inadequate registered nurse ratios in acute hospital wards, and of the Health Committee’s report into the Francis inquiry, which made recommendations in that regard. In inspecting hospitals, what objective measure should the Care Quality Commission use when looking at safe staffing levels on acute hospital wards?

Daniel Poulter: The CQC is working with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and NHS England to devise tools to do exactly that. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the number of front-line staff required, whether nurses or doctors, to look after a patient who is in a cardiac intensive care unit will differ from the number required in a rehabilitation setting. The tools that the chief inspector of hospitals will be able to apply are being developed.

Ben Bradshaw: Why do the Government continue to set their face against the essential recommendation of the Francis inquiry on minimum staffing levels?

Daniel Poulter: The simple reason, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware from his time at the Department of Health, is that ticking boxes on minimum staffing levels does not equate to good care. It can sometimes lead to a drive to the bottom, rather than to addressing the needs of the patients whom the front-line staff are looking after. The Berwick review has borne that out clearly. It is important to consider the patients and the skills mix on the ward, and to ensure that we get things right on the day for the individual needs of the patients.

Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend ask the chief inspector to ensure that by the bed of every in-patient there is the name of the nurse and the doctor responsible, so that nobody gets lost in hospitals again?

Daniel Poulter: I am very sympathetic to the point made by my hon. Friend. The chief inspector has indicated that he will look at how individual wards are run on a granular level to ensure there is the right skills mix to look after patients on any particular day, with proper accountability for patient care.

Barbara Keeley: The chief inspector of hospitals says he will monitor levels of unanswered call bells, but not the ward staffing levels that cause the bells to be unanswered. Is that not ridiculous? Is it not time that Ministers changed their minds on this important issue, as Robert Francis has now done?

Daniel Poulter: As the hon. Lady will be aware, on the basis of the Francis report the Berwick review considered that issue in detail and highlighted the fact that safe staffing levels are not about ticking a box for minimum staffing, but about developing tools that recognise the individual needs of patients on the ward. The previous Government went down the route of tick-boxes in health care. I worked on the front line during that time and that route did not deliver high-quality care. We need the right tools to support front-line staff so that they make the right decisions in looking after patients. It is not about tick-boxes; it is about good care.

Fast-food Industry (Public Health Responsibility Deal)

Kerry McCarthy: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the public health responsibility deal on the products and marketing practices of the fast-food industry.

Jane Ellison: We appreciate the contribution that the fast-food sector is making to the responsibility deal. More than 5,000 fast-food restaurants have labelled calories clearly, which means that more than 70% of high street fast food and takeaway meals are labelled. There is always more to do and we are keen to take this forward. Progress has been made through voluntary responsibility deals with industry.

Kerry McCarthy: I welcome the Minister to her new post. I do not suppose she has yet had time to look at the authoritative international study of asthma and allergies in childhood, which shows a clear link between the consumption of fast food and asthma and allergies. The Government, however, have refused to discuss that with the public health responsibility partners. When will the Government start to take public health seriously and hold companies to account?

Jane Ellison: The idea that the Government do not take responsibility for public health seriously is ridiculous. Public health will never be improved just from Whitehall. The work has to be done together, among local government—which is keen and has been given the tools and resources—central Government, business and industry. Such long-term partnership working to improve the public’s health can only be done together. I will look at the hon. Lady’s specific point, but I reject the idea that the Government are not taking this issue seriously—far from it.

David Nuttall: Will the Minister confirm that as far as fast food is concerned, personal responsibility will not be replaced by Government-imposed nanny state regulation?

Jane Ellison: It is good as a Minister to hear the phrase “nanny state” get its first airing. We believe in the informed consumer, and that is the idea behind so many restaurants labelling calorie content on their food. Most of us want to be healthy and most of us know when we want to diet and lose weight. By working with business, we can enable the consumer to make an informed decision about their health.

Keith Vaz: I declare my interest and welcome the Minister to her new portfolio. I wish to support the nanny state to this extent: it is fine for companies to sign up to the responsibility deal, but they have to deliver. As her first act as Minister with responsibility for diabetes, will she ban sugar from all Department of Health canteens, and stop selling in our hospitals fizzy drinks that contribute to diabetes?

Jane Ellison: As the right hon. Gentleman might know, my first outing as public health Minister was to attend a diabetes think-tank, which I hope indicates how seriously I take the issue. I do not think what he asks for is within my powers, but obviously I will take a close interest in the Department of Health canteen. The right hon. Gentleman is right. We have never said that other measures will not necessarily be taken, but the responsibility deal has taken us a long way when many predicted it would not, and we are keen to inject new energy into it.

Andrew Percy: When I was in the classroom as a school teacher, people used to come to school having had Micro Chips for breakfast. I do not wish to see a nanny state imposed on anybody, but we must do a lot more education. I urge the Minister’s Department to work cross-departmentally with the Department for Education to ensure that we get proper health and food education in our schools. Those using fast food at the moment are often those who can least afford it.

Jane Ellison: I am glad my hon. Friend has raised the issue of working with schools and education, and I have already had initial discussions with my opposite number at the Department for Education. We think we have an exciting agenda to take forward, and I hear what my hon. Friend says.

Jim Shannon: In 2011-12, childhood obesity rose by 37% across the United Kingdom. Will the Minister take into account the child marketing strategy of the fast-food industry when considering how best to address the issue?

Jane Ellison: I am interested in looking at what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will be happy to talk to him about that.

Transparency

Alun Cairns: What steps his Department is taking to promote a culture of openness and transparency across the NHS.

Jeremy Hunt: We need to change the culture of the NHS so that where there are problems with care or safety, people feel able to speak out. The Government have banned gagging clauses, they are introducing a statutory duty of candour, and they have for the first time published surgery outcomes for 10 specialties by consultant.

Alun Cairns: I commend the Secretary of State on his transparency agenda, which has uncovered previously untold horrors. What more can he do to ensure that in future no Minister can ever cover up failure in the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: I know this is difficult territory for the Labour party, but the most important thing is for regulators to feel that they can speak out about poor care without fear or favour. I am afraid that did not happen under the previous Government, so let me just—

Mr Speaker: Order. I told the Secretary of State privately before, and I say it publicly now, that if he intends to devote part of his answer to talking about what happened under the previous Government, he can abandon that plan now and resume his seat. I suggest he resumes his seat.

Tom Clarke: As part of this openness and transparency, will the Government improve their relations with the police and prison services, so that we can have a clearer idea of why people with mental illnesses are spending time in police cells or being sent to prison?

Jeremy Hunt: I am pleased to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are working closely with the police to try to ensure that some of the people held in police cells are given much faster access to mental health services. That includes a street triage pilot, which has had early and promising results.

Charlotte Leslie: I was informed this morning that the chair of the NHS property board has resigned. That follows the revelation last week, through parliamentary questions I asked, that the board has been raiding its capital allocation to subsidise
	its own revenue funding. In the interests of transparency, will the Secretary of State undertake to review and publish the recruitment and employment procedure of executive and non-executive members of the board—including civil servant Peter Coates who created the board, which oversees £3 billion-worth of assets—and conduct careful audit and scrutiny of the board’s accounts and minutes?

Jeremy Hunt: Obviously, the suggestions my hon. Friend makes are extremely serious. If she lets me have a copy of all the things she is directly concerned about, I will look into it with the greatest priority.

Jamie Reed: With regard to openness and transparency, the Secretary of State’s failure to extend the Freedom of Information Act to private providers delivering NHS services is fostering a culture of secrecy. As he forces clinical commissioning groups to tender more services to the private sector, and if he truly believes in openness and the independence of health regulators, will he follow the clear advice from Monitor and extend FOI legislation to private providers, or is he content to allow them to continue to withhold information from patients?

Jeremy Hunt: When it comes to transparency about care, there should be an absolute level playing field between private providers and NHS providers. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question on regulators, what this Government are going to do, Mr Speaker, is ensure that the Care Quality Commission has statutory independence so that no Government can ever try to interfere with the processes of reporting poor care.

Calderdale Royal Hospital (Accident and Emergency Ward)

Linda Riordan: Whether he plans to close all or part of Calderdale Royal hospital’s accident and emergency ward.

Jane Ellison: I am advised by the NHS that there are no plans for the closure or downgrading of the accident and emergency department at Calderdale Royal hospital. Obviously, as the hon. Lady knows, the reconfiguration of local health services is a matter for the local NHS commissioners. As I understand it, they and the local authorities are currently reviewing health and social care services, including emergency care, across the wider Huddersfield and Calderdale area.

Linda Riordan: I thank the Minister for her reply, but we need stronger reassurances in Halifax that the accident and emergency unit at Calderdale Royal is safe, particularly given the threatened closures of walk-in centres. Will she give that commitment now?

Jane Ellison: As I have said, those are matters for the local NHS commissioners. As I understand it, they have begun a review. The hon. Lady will want to be deeply engaged with it on behalf of her constituents. Everything that might be proposed will be subject to a full public consultation.

David Morris: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am always pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I simply point out to him that Calderdale is rather a long way from Morecambe and Lunesdale. Calderdale is the subject of the question; therefore, it is essentially closed. I hope that that is helpful to him and the House.

Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Clinical Strategy

Nick de Bois: What progress has been made on implementation of the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey clinical strategy.

Norman Lamb: The local NHS continues implementing the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey clinical strategy, which was approved by the Secretary of State in September 2011 following a review by the independent reconfiguration panel. Enfield council has recently issued an application for judicial review of local clinical commissioning group plans. Unfortunately, I am therefore limited in what I can say in that regard.

Nick de Bois: Department of Health Ministers know well of my continued opposition to the decision. However, does the Minister understand that it is crucial that the investment in primary care first promised by the Secretary of State in 2008 is in place before the reconfiguration takes place? Will the Minister confirm that patients will have access to a doctor on the Chase Farm site 24/7?

Norman Lamb: First, I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s campaigning on behalf of his constituents—he has worked very hard. I understand that, as part of the case for change and for reconfiguring health services at Chase Farm hospital, a doctor will be available to see patients at Chase Farm 24 hours a day, seven days a week. However, given that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been named as a defendant by Enfield council in the judicial review, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this time.

David Burrowes: Does the Minister recognise that the question is not if the changes take place, but when? Does he recognise that all my local doctors say that it is in the best health interests to get on with the changes, not least given that the £200 million invested in the new North Middlesex hospital in Enfield was dependent on them?

Norman Lamb: I recognise my hon. Friend’s work in this regard. Decisions should be based on clinical judgment and the views of local doctors are important. He draws attention to a fantastic new facility. I pay tribute to everyone who has worked to achieve it. It will serve the local community well.

Doctors (Accountability)

Priti Patel: What measures are in place to hold doctors accountable for their mistakes.

Jeremy Hunt: While always paying regard to the superb job done by most doctors, we should allow no hiding place for doctors who endanger patients’ lives by irresponsible or careless behaviour, which is why we have asked the Law Commission to come up with proposals to speed up General Medical Council investigations. We are also considering a new criminal offence of wilful neglect, as recommended by Professor Don Berwick.

Priti Patel: The cancer diagnosis of my constituent, Mrs Julia Wild, was delayed by nine months because of a mistake by the initial doctor at her first assessment. For four years, she has been fighting for an apology, for transparency and for the doctor to acknowledge what went wrong with her case. What can Mrs Wild, and other patients in the NHS who have had similar experiences, do to ensure that their complaints are taken seriously, that these life-changing mistakes are acknowledged and that the individuals responsible are held to account?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend speaks extremely well and I fully understand her concern about Mrs Julia Wild and the care she received. I cannot second-guess the clinical judgment of the GMC, but I agree that Mrs Wild is owed an apology. If the local NHS will not give it, I will give it now. We should have spotted the advanced lobular cancer and I apologise to her that we did not.

Chi Onwurah: On Friday I visited Cruddas Park surgery in my constituency to see the fantastic work that doctors and staff are doing in the face of huge levels of unmet need, health inequalities and rising mental health issues. If we hold doctors to account for their mistakes, is it not right that they should be able to hold Ministers to account for taking millions of pounds out of their funding and then telling my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) that it was nothing to do with him?

Jeremy Hunt: Doctors should be able to hold Ministers to account, as should the public. That is why they will be pleased to know that we protected the NHS budget, and did not follow the advice of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who wanted it cut from its current levels.

Crispin Blunt: While we are always of course keen to hold doctors to account for their mistakes, I trust that we will be equally keen to reward them for examples of really good practice, such as those my right hon. Friend will see on Thursday when he makes his very welcome visit to the East Surrey hospital. I commend to him the work of Dr Ben Mearns and his emergency and acute team, who demonstrate good practice and also make it transparent to the rest of the national health service.

Jeremy Hunt: I am greatly looking forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s hospital on Thursday and going out on the front line. I agree that we need to celebrate success. This has been a difficult year for the NHS as we have learned to be much more transparent about problems when they exist, but one of the advantages of having a chief inspector is that his team will be able to identify and recognise outstanding practice, so that everyone
	will understand that, as well as some of the problems that get more attention, brilliant things are happening throughout our NHS.

Stephen McCabe: Is the Secretary of State comfortable with a surgeon such as Ian Paterson flitting between the NHS and the private sector, making the same blunders in both but being subject to different levels of accountability and his victims having access to different levels of redress?

Jeremy Hunt: As I said in response to an earlier question, the responsibility to be transparent about care should apply equally in the public and the private sector. Obviously, in the public sector we have more levers, because we are purchasing care and we can impose more conditions than it is possible to do in the private sector. The most important thing is to have a culture in which such problems come to light quickly when they happen, so that they are dealt with and not repeated.

Cancer Survival Rates (Data)

John Baron: For what reasons the publication of data on one-year and five-year survival rates for all cancers within the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes Indicator Set has been deferred until March 2014.

Jane Ellison: I am aware of delays in the availability of source data at a local level. For that reason, it is not possible to publish data on one-year and five-year survival rates for all cancers before March 2014. I know that my hon. Friend is frustrated by this and that he has done a lot of work on this issue as the chair of the all-party group, but I am sure he will agree that it is better to have accurate information to make these vital clinical judgments.

John Baron: The Minister will be aware that the all-party group on cancer has campaigned long and hard for the monitoring of the one-year and five-year survival rates as a driver for earlier diagnosis—cancer’s magic key. What assurances can she give that the March 2014 deadline will be met and that appropriate action will be taken against those CCGs that underperform?

Jane Ellison: We have spoken to NHS England, which has advised me that it is not aware of any reason to think that the March 2014 will not be met. As my hon. Friend knows, however, the day-to-day management of CCGs is a matter for NHS England, and I am sure he would not approve of Ministers trying to micro-manage CCGs from Whitehall. His strength of feeling is clear, and I am happy to have an ongoing dialogue with him and the all-party group on this matter.

Tessa Munt: Having heard the Minister’s answer on survival rates and the importance of early diagnosis, may I ask her whether cancer patients in need of life-saving treatment recommended by their clinicians who have waited for more than two weeks because of the commissioners’ delay in agreeing funding have the legal right to insist on being treated once they have gone past the two-week deadline? If so, how would they do that?

Jane Ellison: If my hon. Friend will allow me, we will perhaps need a separate conversation. I am happy to meet her afterwards to discuss the matter she has raised.

Patient-led NHS

Steven Baker: What steps he is taking to ensure that the NHS becomes a more patient-led organisation.

Jeremy Hunt: The big shift we need to make is to turn the NHS into a patient-led organisation. Two measures that will help that are: independent inspections by a new chief inspector that put the patient experience at their heart; and asking every NHS in-patient if they would recommend their treatment to a friend or member of their family.

Steven Baker: I am encouraged by that answer. Long ago, the medical establishment was held to account by what were essentially patient-led co-operatives, and today more and more voices are asking for more patient engagement. Will the Secretary of State consider a paper brought forward by Civitas and Anton Howes calling for the incremental implementation of patient-led commissioning to close this gap?

Jeremy Hunt: No one campaigns harder than my hon. Friend on the issue of putting patients first in his constituency and throughout the NHS. CCGs have a legal obligation to involve patients in decisions about services and about them personally. The ideas in the paper he mentions are interesting, and I respect them, but given that we have brand-new commissioners and inspectors going out this year, I think we should see how the current reforms work first.

Topical Questions

Annette Brooke: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: Today we published a report demonstrating that the NHS could recover as much as £500 million from better systems to monitor and track those who should be paying for the NHS treatment and introducing new charges to certain categories of people currently exempt. This is a significant sum of money that could fund 4,000 doctors, and far from being xenophobic, as some in the Opposition have alleged, the Government believe it is right that overseas visitors who do not pay for the NHS through the tax system should make a fair contribution through charges.

Annette Brooke: Poole hospital, which is much loved locally and has excellent care ratings, has a financial problem relating to tariffs that must be addressed. The £5 million spent on putting a failed case for a merger between Bournemouth and Poole hospitals to the Competition Commission raises questions about processes and openness with the public. I hope the Secretary of State can make some comments today, but will he meet me and other local MPs to discuss all these issues in greater detail?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do so. I want to make it clear to my hon. Friend that I am keen to ensure we have a structure inside the NHS that makes it easy for high-performing hospitals that want to work more closely together and share services to do so, if it is in the interests of patients. We need to do more work in this area.

Andy Burnham: The Secretary of State has been in post for a year, and in that time, we have got used to his style: everything is always someone else’s fault, be it lazy GPs, uncaring nurses or the last Government. And today we see more diversion tactics—now immigration is to blame. But there is an inconvenient truth that gets clearer day by day and which he cannot spin away: A and E is getting worse and worse and worse on his watch. We have had ambulance queues, a treatment tent in a car park and now police cars doubling as ambulances, with a patient dying on the backseat. The NHS stands on the brink of a dangerous winter. Will he today set out in detail what he personally is doing to avert a crisis?

Jeremy Hunt: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to his place. It is a great pleasure to see him there, even if it is not entirely what the Labour leader wanted.
	If the right hon. Gentleman is shocked that I breached the A and E target for one quarter last year, he will want to make a full apology for the fact that he breached it for two quarters when he was Health Secretary.

Andy Burnham: This complacent spin is no good to the NHS. If he wants to compare records, let us do that. Under me, 98 per cent. of people were seen within four hours; under him, over 1 million people in the last year waited more than four hours in A and E—not only a winter crisis, but the first summer A and E crisis in living memory. Today it gets worse. New figures this morning show a further 450 nursing jobs have been cut, taking the total close to 6,000 under this Government. But what were they doing last night? Voting in the Lords against safe staffing levels. Will he now listen to the experts, stop the job cuts and take immediate action to ensure that all A and Es have enough staff to provide safe care this winter?

Jeremy Hunt: We will listen to no one on the Opposition Benches when it comes to safe care for patients in the NHS. They presided over a system where whistleblowers were bullied, patients were ignored and regulators felt leaned on if they tried to speak out about poor care. That is a record to be ashamed of.

Mark Pawsey: There is evidence that a nutritional meal can be a real aid to the recovery of patients, yet the Campaign for Better Hospital Food found that 82,000 hospital meals are thrown in the bin every single day. Will the Minister update the House on the steps being taken to ensure that patients receive a hot balanced meal, served at an appropriate time?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of all patients receiving high-quality nutrition, and a lot of work has gone into promoting time for hospital patients to be fed and into
	protecting mealtimes, as well as into reducing hospital waste. Hospital food waste is now below 7 per cent nationally.

Karl Turner: We have a crisis in community nursing in Hull, with district nurses being stretched to breaking point. Does the Minister not agree that withdrawing funding from this service is economically short-sighted given that the foundation trust’s deputy chief executive says:
	“If the crisis continues, the nurses will not be able to care for patients in the community and it could result in them being readmitted to hospital”?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that local commissioners have a duty to ensure adequate community health care provision. I hope that that is an issue that he will take up with them. If he would like help in that fight, I am happy for him to come and meet me, and to bring in the local commissioners to talk this through, as it is important that we have enough community nurses to provide good care in communities and local commissioners need to listen to that.

Andrea Leadsom: Can my hon. Friend update the House on what he is doing to support the earliest relationships of new families through early years intervention? Specifically, will he support the cross-party “1,001 Critical Days” manifesto?

Daniel Poulter: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done on the early years, and there are many good things in that manifesto. That is why we are investing in an additional 4,200 health visitors by 2015 and why we are supporting the most vulnerable families by increasing to 16,000 the number of families that will be supported by family nurses by 2015. A lot of investment is going into early years, which pays back to the Exchequer and gives much better care to families, too.

Alison McGovern: Wirral council has said that anybody who wants to be involved in providing social care must show their commitment to the ethical care charter. Will the Minister congratulate leading councillors Phil Davies and Chris Jones on taking this initiative, which includes a move away from zero hours contracts? Will he say specifically what conversations he has had with the Local Government Minister and with Treasury Ministers about making sure that each and every local authority has sufficient funds to fulfil their legal obligations in care services?

Norman Lamb: I pay tribute absolutely to that local initiative, which is exactly the sort of direction we are going in. I have made the point several times that we cannot get great care on the back of exploiting workers. The idea that people should not be paid while they are travelling from one house to another is, in my view, unacceptable. When employers and care providers breach the minimum wage legislation, we should be absolutely clear that that is completely unacceptable. To ensure great care, the Government are introducing in 2015-16 the £3.8 billion integrated transformation fund, which will pool resources
	between the NHS and social care to ensure that we shift the focus to preventing ill- health and deterioration, and I think that that can make a real difference.

Chris Skidmore: I and my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) have long campaigned for the maximum hospital facilities at Frenchay hospital, including a community hospital with an outpatients clinic—as was agreed as part of the Bristol health services plan in both 2005 and 2010. Now it seems that NHS managers are attempting to revisit these plans, something to which I am opposed, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke, who has recently written to the Secretary of State to ask for a meeting to look into the situation. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet us both and investigate the situation?

Jane Ellison: I am always happy to meet colleagues for discussions, particularly when they are championing important health care facilities in their local area. I can confirm that the Secretary of State has received a formal referral from South Gloucestershire council in relation to these proposals, and has referred them to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. He will of course consider the panel’s recommendations before making a final decision, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it would be inappropriate to pre-empt those deliberations.

Toby Perkins: My constituent Jemma Hill is 25 and suffers from chronic hip pain, for which a specialist has recommended hip arthroscopy surgery. However, she has now been told that her local clinical commissioning group does not fund such treatment. Does it not make a mockery of GP-led commissioning when a CCG will not fund the treatment recommended by a specialist to whom the GP referred my constituent in the first place?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very happy to look into that matter, because it sounds like a very deserving case. I will look into the details carefully if the hon. Gentleman gives me the relevant information.

Jason McCartney: Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to learn from the mistakes of the Safe and Sustainable review of children’s heart surgery services and improve the forthcoming review in two ways? First, we should make the process a lot more transparent. Secondly, areas such as neo-natal, paediatric and adult intensive care unit services and transport and retrieval services should fall within the scope of the new review.

Norman Lamb: I agree that we must learn the lessons. NHS England is responsible for conducting the new review into congenital heart disease services, and it is committed to conducting a review that is robust, transparent and inclusive, in the interests of delivering high-quality, sustainable services for all patients.

Jessica Morden: When the minimum wage increased recently, a working carer on 15 hours a week contacted me because she found herself to be 85p over the threshold for carers allowance, meaning that she would lose £259 a
	month. What work is the Minister doing with other Departments to ensure that carers are not penalised for caring and working?

Norman Lamb: First, we should applaud the work of the many carers around the country who are doing absolutely invaluable work. It is obviously important to ensure that the policies of one Department do not have an adverse impact on the work of another, and I will be happy to look into the case that the hon. Lady has raised.

John Glen: Dr Elizabeth Stanger, a highly respected Salisbury GP, recently questioned me about the sustainability of providing multiple treatments for complex medical problems for several generations of the same family of foreign nationals. I welcome today’s announcement, and ask the Minister to reassure me that the mechanism to recover the funds will ensure that the money goes back to the clinical commissioning group so that it can provide a benefit locally.

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely can reassure my hon. Friend about that. The point about the new, improved system for recovering charges is that we want the money to go back to the people providing the services so that they will be able to resource them better. This is not the diversionary tactic that some have accused us this morning of introducing; £500 million could have a huge impact on the NHS front line and allow his GPs to do a much better job.

Kate Green: This evening, the joint health overview and scrutiny committee for Trafford and Manchester will meet to consider whether the preconditions for the reconfiguration of services in Trafford, including those set down by the Secretary of State, have been met. I understand that the NHS area team has already confirmed that it believes the conditions have been fulfilled, but will the Secretary of State tell me what would happen if, as seems possible, the scrutiny committee were to take a different view tonight and decide that not all the conditions had been met?

Jeremy Hunt: We will obviously respect the legal processes, but if the scrutiny committee were to take such a view tonight, we would certainly look very closely at its concerns and ensure that we had satisfied ourselves on them before proceeding.

Duncan Hames: A written answer from the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), to my recent parliamentary question has on this subject revealed that people living in the south-west of England are three times as likely to contract Lyme disease as those in the rest of the country, yet I have a constituent doing what he calls drug runs to the rest of Europe to access the medicines necessary to tackle his symptoms. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can ensure the continuing availability of treatments for Lyme disease on the NHS?

Jane Ellison: I learned a great deal about Lyme disease in the course of answering my first parliamentary questions, so I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to have that discussion.

Dan Jarvis: Given that at least a quarter of a million children aged 11 to 15 take up smoking across the country each year, does the Minister accept that if we wait for two to three years for evidence to emerge from Australia about the impact of standardised cigarette packaging, hundreds of thousands of children will have started to smoke in the meantime?

Jane Ellison: On the Government Benches, we are interested in all measures that might stop children smoking. I do not recognise at all the time scales that the hon. Gentleman mentions. We are looking now at what is emerging in Australia and around the world so that we have more information on which to base an informed decision.

Anne McIntosh: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of NHS England to discuss future priorities for NHS spending, will he ensure a fair deal for rural areas by ensuring that they reflect rurality, sparsity and the number of elderly patients and that we keep the minimum income guarantee for rural GP practices?

Jeremy Hunt: I can reassure my hon. Friend, as I am meeting some Yorkshire GPs later this week who have concerns about that very issue. The most important thing about the difficult issue of the funding formula is that it should be fair. That is why under the new legislation we have given the decision to an independent body so that it is taken at arm’s length from Ministers and so that it strikes the right balance between the issues of rurality, age and social deprivation.

Hazel Blears: The NHS, with its massive purchasing power, can make a real difference to local areas through jobs and through supply chains. Some hospital trusts are enthusiastically implementing the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, including Barts and King’s. Will the Minister ensure that his new procurement strategy recognises the importance of social value?

Daniel Poulter: The right hon. Lady makes a good point. We want improvements to the procurement process not just to save money, so that hospitals have more money to spend on the front line, but to support small and medium-sized businesses appropriately, such as by simplifying the qualifying questionnaire process, which is often too complex for small businesses to become
	involved in and therefore rules them out of the market. There are a lot of good things and I am happy to meet her to discuss the matter further if she would like.

Tim Loughton: The Secretary of State knows Worthing hospital well; he has rolled his sleeves up there. When I went there a few weeks ago, I was told that the average age of patients in the hospital, stripping out maternity, is 85, yet we have qualified for no winter pressures money and we have a diminishing number of community hospital beds. Will he look into this anomaly, as he well knows the specific pressures we have on the south coast?

Jeremy Hunt: I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns and I know that there is a large elderly population in Worthing. I thought it was an excellent hospital with a fantastic atmosphere when I went and did part of a shift there. The winter pressures money went to the third of A and E departments that are struggling the most, so it is probably a compliment to his hospital that it did not receive it. We felt that with limited funds we had to concentrate resources where they were going to have the most impact. I hope that he understands why we had to make that difficult decision.

Joan Walley: This week, the report of the trust special administrator in respect of Stafford hospital is being presented to Monitor. Given that the preferred option is that the University Hospital of North Staffordshire should in some way take over, will the Secretary of State urgently meet all Members of Parliament for the north Staffordshire area to ensure that health care in north Staffordshire, where we already have a deficit of £31 million with an extra £18 million set to come over, will not be destabilised?

Jeremy Hunt: We are acutely aware of those concerns. In any reconfiguration, and particularly in this one, we want to ensure that there is no instability in the local health economy. We have given the trust special administrator a little longer to come up with a plan for Stafford hospital to try to secure local agreement, so I have not had a recommendation yet and I am going to wait and see what he says.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State and colleagues, but as usual demand has exceeded supply and we must now move on.

Point of Order

Jamie Reed: On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr Speaker: I am sure that it will not be a continuation of questions, but something novel, innovative and unrelated to what has transpired before.

Jamie Reed: Mr Speaker, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) echoed an untrue allegation made by the Secretary of State concerning a ministerial cover-up of hospital failures under the previous Government. That is a serious allegation and I seek your guidance. Should not the hon. Gentleman either provide immediate evidence or withdraw what is a demonstrably untrue allegation?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put his concerns on the record. Each Member in this House is responsible for what he or she says, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, because his hearing is impeccable, I exhorted him not to continue Question Time. I have known him for more than a decade and he is nothing if not respectful of rules and order, so I know that that is not a cheeky expression on his face but merely his version of an accepting smile.

Alun Cairns: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr Speaker: I do not think that anything further is required. The hon. Gentleman’s proffered assistance is generous in spirit but entirely unnecessary in practice. We shall leave it there for today. If there are no further points of order—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is in a very good mood, and so he might be. I saw him literally leap from the floor—his feet lost contact with the ground—in his eagerness to catch my eye, and on this occasion he was successful. We shall leave it there—I am glad that the House is in such a good mood.

Descendants of Deceased Adopted People (Access to Information)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Nick de Bois: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to allow access to information for the descendants of deceased adopted people; and for connected purposes.
	The direct descendants of deceased adopted people continue to face significant difficulty when they attempt to access information about their biological, rather than adopted, family. For example, the child of a deceased adopted adult often finds it impossible to trace any information about their biological grandparents. That difficulty is heightened when the adopted individual has made no efforts to trace their biological parents before they die. Information about the biological relatives of deceased adopted people can be fundamentally important, especially in relation to medical conditions.
	If an adopted person dies suddenly, their direct descendants often need to inquire into the condition from which they have suffered to discover if what they died from is hereditary. For example, familial breast cancer typically occurs in people with an unusually high number of family members who have been affected by breast, ovarian or a similar cancer. Those who have a family history of breast cancer often need different medical management from those without such a history because of the clear differences in the potential for developing such cancers.
	While it is important that everyone is able actively to look after their own health, the descendants of deceased adopted people are prevented by procedural barriers from doing so. For all they know, a hereditary condition is sitting within them like a ticking time-bomb, and the current legislation prevents them from attempting to defuse it. Particularly in an era when we ask everyone to take more care of their own health and inject some personal responsibility into their well-being, it is crucial that the descendants of deceased adopted people are granted access to the medical information required to undertake preventive measures.
	The solution to such a quandary is relatively simple but, as I have learnt in the few years I have been in this place, the simple solutions often appear to be the most difficult to implement. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I welcome the House’s enthusiasm. If we simply insert the term “their direct descendants” into specific clauses of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the direct descendants of deceased adopted people will be granted access to information to which, I believe, they are rightfully entitled. Such an amendment has the support of the descendants of deceased adopted persons group and the British Association for Adoption and Fostering. Some people have expressed concern that that will lead to a rush of claims, but there is no evidence to show that the proposed measures will open the floodgates to unmanageable numbers of descendants of deceased adopted people wishing to access information through intermediary services.
	I welcome the support expressed by Julia Feast of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, who has been a committed advocate of this important matter. In Julia’s own words, the
	“descendants of deceased adopted people should have been included when a description of a birth relative was defined in the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I welcome the measures being put forward in this Bill, and hope that they will pave the way for meaningful change.”
	I am also particularly grateful for the advice and support of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who raised the prospect of the increased numbers the Bill would benefit because of forced adoptions.
	I can assure the House that these measures will not be problematic and complex. The agencies that would provide intermediary services for descendants of deceased adopted people already have the skills, knowledge and experience to process applications received. The sensitivities and complexities would be dealt with in the same way as they are at present for a birth family seeking information about contact with an adopted person.
	It must be noted that in 2010 the Law Commission looked at introducing such an amendment via the other place, and there is still the potential for such an alteration to be made in that way. However, given the limits on Government time, of which we in this House are all too plainly aware, such potentially wide scoping currently remains unlikely. Therefore, a small amendment could be made which grants the direct descendants of deceased adopted people access to medical records. I hope the Bill will proceed through the House with the support demonstrated by many Members across the House, for which I am grateful.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Nick de Bois, Tim Loughton, Mr David Blunkett, Mark Durkan, Sir Bob Russell, Bob Blackman, Mr David Amess, Stephen Phillips, Caroline Nokes, Mark Field, John Robertson and Mr Dominic Raab present the Bill.
	Nick de Bois accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November and to be printed (Bill 116).

Immigration Bill

[Relevant document: The Seventh Report of the Public Administration Committee, on Migration Statistics, HC523.]
	Second Reading

Theresa May: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	We have introduced a limit on economic migration from outside the EU, cut out abuse of student visas and reformed family visas. As a result, net migration is down by a third. Our objective—

Simon Danczuk: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: Well, if the hon. Gentleman really wants to intervene.

Simon Danczuk: The Home Secretary says that net migration is down by a third; the reality is that it has fallen by only a quarter. The House of Commons Library has confirmed that, and the Government are at risk of misleading Parliament. Would the Home Secretary like to correct the record?

Theresa May: It is a bit cheeky for a Labour Member to stand up and complain about the figures for falling migration. Immigration is down since 2010 and net migration is down by a third from its peak in 2010.
	Our objective remains to reduce annual net migration to the tens of thousands by the end of the Parliament, and we must also reform the immigration system that manages the flow of migrants in and out of the UK. When I addressed the House in March this year, I explained that the immigration system that we had inherited from the last Government was chaotic and dysfunctional. Having created a separate entity in the UK Border Force to get a grip on border checks, we were left with a UK Border Agency that still lacked transparency and accountability, and to tackle that I split the UK Border Agency into two distinct operational commands inside the Home Office—UK visas and immigration and immigration enforcement. I made it clear that while organisational reform was necessary to transform the way in which we dealt with immigration, it would not on its own be enough to achieve that goal. We also needed to update the IT infrastructure and to change the complicated legal and policy framework that so often worked against us. The Bill changes some of that legal and policy framework so that it will be possible for the immigration system to operate fairly and effectively.

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary was clearly right to intervene in the way that she did to sort out UKBA, which was clearly dysfunctional, and that was the right move in the right direction. But those of us who are willing to give the Bill a Second Reading—I am one of them—have concerns that there was no draft Bill, no Green Paper and no White Paper; there was consultation on only part of the Bill, and there are sensitive areas that need
	to be looked at across the board, including in connection with the legal aid changes. Why do we have to deal so quickly with such sensitive and difficult issues?

Theresa May: It has been clear for some time, as I have laid out, that the Government wanted to bring forward legal and policy framework proposals to make sure that we can deliver for people in this country a fair approach on immigration, which ensures that those who come here and stay here and use our public services contribute, and that those who are here illegally can be removed more quickly. My right hon. Friend is a long-standing Member of the House and knows full well that there will be significant opportunities for discussion of this matter in Committee. I can assure him that there have already been a considerable number of discussions on the elements that have gone into the Bill. These are issues that have been addressed by Select Committees in the past.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Theresa May: I give way to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Keith Vaz: We look forward to considering this again in the future. The BBC is reporting that the immigration vans that were introduced by the Government to go around certain cities to ask people to leave the country will no longer be rolled out. When she appeared before the Select Committee last Tuesday, she said that the vans were not her personal idea, but part of a package. Has she now seen the pilot and is she now telling the House that they will not be rolled out throughout the country?

Theresa May: What I said to the right hon. Gentleman was that I did not have a flash of blinding light one day and walk into the Home Office and say, “I know, why don’t we do this?” I have looked at the interim evaluation of the vans. Some returns were achieved, but politicians should be willing to step up to the plate and say when they think that something has not been such a good idea, and I think that they were too blunt an instrument. But we should also be absolutely clear about what used to happen under the last Government. If somebody came to the end of their visa, no one got in touch with them to say that they should no longer be staying here in the UK. That is now happening as a result of the changes to immigration enforcement. As a result of that work, during the last year some 4,000 people have left the UK. It is absolutely right that we do that, but we will not be rolling out the vans; they were too much of a blunt instrument.

Lee Scott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are able, in a sensitive area, to stop some of the abuses, it will allow us to help the very people whom we all in this House want to help, instead of having our system abused?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to stand by those who have come here legitimately and who have done the right thing, and make it absolutely clear that we are taking action against those who are here illegally and abusing the system.

James Clappison: Is it not also the case that the previous Government not only did nothing to encourage people to leave the country when they had overstayed, but instituted a series of amnesties that undermined the credibility of the whole system for overstaying people?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why any complaints we hear from Labour Members today will ring hollow with the people of this country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Theresa May: I have taken a number of interventions and will now make some progress.
	I will set out the elements of the Bill in context. First, the Bill will cut abuse of the appeal process. It will streamline the labyrinthine legal process, which at present allows appeals against 17 different Home Office decisions—17 different opportunities for immigration lawyers to cash in and for immigrants who should not be here to delay their deportation or removal. By limiting the grounds for appeal to four—only those that engage fundamental rights—we will cut that abuse.
	Secondly, we will extend the number of non-suspensive appeals so that, where there is no risk of serious and irreversible harm, we can deport first and hear appeals later. We will also end the abuse of article 8. There are some who seem to think that the right to family life should always take precedence over public interest in immigration control and when deporting foreign criminals. The Bill will make the view of Parliament on the issue very clear. Finally, the Bill will clamp down on those who live and work in the UK illegally and take advantage of our public services. That is not fair to the British public and to the legitimate migrants who contribute to our society and economy.

Sarah Teather: Did the Home Secretary take advice from colleagues in the Department for Education on the extent to which her definition of article 8 is compliant with our obligations under the UN convention on the right of the child?

Theresa May: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have had a number of discussions with colleagues in the Department for Education on the operation of the proposals in the Bill. There is an agreement across the Government that we need to do precisely what I have just set out in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott): we must ensure that we are fair to those people who come here legitimately and do everything the right way, but we must also make it easier to remove those people who do not have a right to be here.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Theresa May: I will make some progress before giving way again.
	Part 1 of the Bill is about removals. The current process for enforcing the removal of people who are in the UK unlawfully is complex, with too many stages before an individual can be removed. With multiple
	decision points, the current system provides individuals with multiple opportunities to bring challenges throughout the process. That increases the risk of further delays before removal takes place. We want to adopt a system in which only one decision is made. That will inform the individual that they cannot stay in the UK, and enable immigration enforcement to remove them if they do not leave voluntarily.
	The existing system, designed by the previous Government through eight different Acts of Parliament, does not work. It was inevitable that such a complex system would be exploited. The Bill remedies that. As well as delaying the removal process, some illegal migrants held in immigration detention may apply to an immigration judge for bail and then use it as an opportunity to disappear. Bail might be appropriate in some circumstances, but can it be appropriate to grant bail when a detainee is booked on a flight in the next few days and there are no exceptional circumstances? Should immigration detainees who have already been refused bail be permitted to make repeat applications day after day? The Bill will bring sense to the law in this area and stop that abuse.

David Heath: The Home Secretary mentioned the eight previous Acts. During my time in the House it has seemed that we get a new immigration Bill at least every two years, and very few of them seem to have any long-lasting beneficial effect. Can she convince me that the Bill is not another example of the Home Office reaching for the statute book, rather than dealing with the management of the immigration service properly, and can she estimate how long we will have to wait for the next immigration Bill?

Theresa May: This is about putting in place a number of legal changes that will help ensure that the system can be better managed. Alongside that policy change, as I have evidenced in the fact that I have abolished the UK Border Agency and set up the two new commands within the Home Office, we are of course making changes in how we manage and administer the system to make it operate more smoothly and rather better.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Home Secretary confirm that limiting the number of bail applications that can be made is nothing new? Under the Bail Act 1976, the number of applications one can make in criminal cases is limited before exceptional circumstances have to be shown, so this is nothing new and we are simply improving the process.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right. We have seen cases in which people have made repeated bail applications, which then have to be dealt with, and sometimes all that happens is that the application is withdrawn at the last minute, which of course causes problems for individuals.

Nicola Blackwood: The Home Secretary is being generous in giving way. Does she agree that a process with so many in-built delays takes a toll not only on the taxpayer but on those going through the process, who have to live through so much uncertainty during that time? Does she also agree that if we are to require the decision makers to make a greater number of decisions earlier in the process, they will need to have greater expertise in order to do so?

Theresa May: We obviously want to ensure that those making the decisions do so properly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is only fair to those who are making applications that they get a decision that has been properly considered within a reasonable space of time. Sadly, that was not happening in the system we inherited, so we are having to make a lot of changes. I have been clear that that change cannot take place within six months; it will take some time before we can see the system that everybody wants.

Toby Perkins: With reference to the point the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) made about discussing numerous immigration Bills during his time in the House, along with the introduction of the UK Border Agency and the Australian-style points-based system and the huge reduction in the number of asylum seekers coming to this country, does that not make it absolutely clear that claims that the previous Labour Government were totally uninterested in immigration are total nonsense? We can argue about how effective the Acts were, but the fact that the previous Government came back so many times to discuss immigration makes it clear that they were very sensitive to the issue.

Theresa May: Unfortunately, the previous Labour Government were interested in immigration in the wrong way. One of the things this Government have had to do, for example, is root out abuse of student visa applications, which started under the previous Government’s points-based system. I will take no lectures about the previous Labour Government’s interest in immigration.

David Ruffley: In June 2003 the then Immigration Minister, Beverly Hughes, said that the impact on migration into Britain of 10 accession countries joining the European Union would be “minimal”, with 13,000 migrants expected a year. That was laughably inaccurate. Can the Home Secretary assure us that the Bill will ensure that there is no repeat of that shocking open-door immigration policy?

Theresa May: I can be absolutely clear with my hon. Friend that, as far as this Government are concerned, full transitional controls should be put on any country joining the European Union. We are also looking at a number of proposals to deal with what we have described on various occasions as the potential pull factors for individuals coming here. The Bill will deal with some of the issues that require a legislative response. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is also looking at concerns about access to benefits and, I am pleased to say, is working well with other EU member states that have similar concerns about the way some of these systems currently operate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Theresa May: The former shadow Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), has been leaping up and down, so I will allow him to intervene, but then I will have to make some progress.

Chris Bryant: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. I want to raise the issue of EU identity cards. She is suggesting that landlords will be
	required to understand all the EU ID cards that guarantee somebody’s right to be in this country. One of the difficulties is that in Italy, for instance, it is not the national state that provides the ID card but the local authority, which can be tiny. How on earth can a commercial landlord be expected to understand all 444 different EU ID cards?

Theresa May: The problem with the argument that the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members have been advancing in relation to landlords is that we already have an example of a system where people check the status of individuals: employers do that, and they are provided with support by the Home Office. Exactly the same will happen with landlords. The idea that this is something entirely new is completely wrong. Many landlords already ask exactly these sorts of questions of the people to whom they are renting properties.
	Establishing the identity of illegal migrants is a further difficulty in the removal process. Visa applicants are required to give their fingerprints to an entry clearance officer before they enter the UK. Following my border reforms last year, the fingerprints of arriving passengers are checked to ensure that the person who has travelled to the UK is the rightful holder of the visa, but there are gaps in our powers to take fingerprints, and the Bill closes them. When the police encounter a suspect, they have the power to check fingerprints, but when an immigration officer encounters a suspected illegal migrant, they may check fingerprints only where consent is given unless they arrest them. Not surprisingly, not everyone consents. Officers need powers equivalent to those of the police so that when they find an illegal migrant they can check their fingerprints to confirm their suspicion and start enforcement action.

Meg Hillier: rose—

Theresa May: I have already been very generous in taking interventions.
	Part 2 is about appeals. The appeals system is complex and costly. Seventeen different immigration decisions attract rights of appeal, and when a case finally comes to a close some applicants put in fresh applications and start all over again. That is not fair to the public, who expect swift enforcement of immigration decisions. The Bill sorts out the mess. In future, the 17 rights of appeal will be reduced to four. Foreign criminals will not be able to prevent deportation simply by dragging out the appeals process, as many such appeals will be heard only once the criminal is back in their home country. It cannot be right that criminals who should be deported can remain here and build up a further claim to a settled life in the United Kingdom.
	As well as reducing the number of appeals, we propose to simplify the process. An appeal to an immigration judge is a very costly and time-consuming way of correcting simple casework errors that could be resolved by a request to the Home Office to review the decision. This is what we already do overseas for millions of visa applicants. Applicants will be able to contact the Home Office and ask for a simple administrative review to remedy such errors. That can resolve errors in decisions
	cheaply and quickly, within 28 days, and it is substantially quicker than the average 12 weeks that it currently takes to appeal via the tribunal with all the costs that that incurs. The Bill creates an effective and efficient appeals system that will ensure that the process cannot be abused or manipulated to delay the removal of those who have no basis for remaining in the UK, but it still provides an opportunity to challenge a decision where fundamental rights are concerned. The public are fed up with cases where foreign criminals are allowed to stay because of an overly generous interpretation by the courts of article 8—the right to respect for family and private life. Under the current system, the winners are foreign criminals and immigration lawyers and the losers are the victims of these crimes and the law-abiding public.
	The Government first sought to address this issue in July 2012 by changing the immigration rules with the intention of shifting the weight the courts give to the public interest. This House debated and approved the new rules, which set out the factors in favour of deportation and the factors against it. The courts accept that the new rules provide a complete code for considering article 8 where we are deporting foreign criminals. However, some judges have still chosen to ignore the will of Parliament and go on putting the law on the side of foreign criminals instead of the public. I am sending a very clear message to those judges: Parliament wants a law on the people’s side, the public want a law on the people’s side, and this Government will put the law on the people’s side once and for all. This Bill will require the courts to put the public interest at the heart of their decisions.

Caroline Lucas: Given that the figures show that first-instance decision making is very poor in this regard, with 42% of family visit visas and 51% of entry clearance applications successfully appealed last year, does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be better to focus on getting the system right than on eroding appeal rights against immigration decisions?

Theresa May: We are going to put in place a system that enables people to have appeal rights in relation to fundamental rights, but we will also put in place an administrative process that enables decisions to be looked at in case administrative errors have been made.

John Spellar: rose—

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Theresa May: No, I have been very generous in giving way. Let me say to Labour Members and to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that one of the problems we have seen in some family visit appeals in the past—this is why we removed the family visit appeal process—is that people have introduced new information into the appeals mechanism in the time since the original decision. That means that the decision in an appeal that is won is not necessarily based on the original case but may be based on the case put forward on appeal, which may be different. The hon. Lady needs to be careful when she quotes figures.

Jack Straw: rose—

Theresa May: I give way to the former Home Secretary.

Jack Straw: May I correct the right hon. Lady on one thing? Long experience tells me that the tribunals do not accept information that has come in after the original application was made; it would sometimes be better if they did. We are all interested in streamlining the system. However, given the very high number of decisions on appeal that overturn the original decisions by the Home Office or the immigration officials abroad, what guarantee can she offer that the quality of the reviews that will now be undertaken by Home Office officials as an alternative to appeals will be subject to proper supervision? In my experience, when we had those reviews before we often got poor-quality decision making and people within the Department saying, “Oh well, if so and so has already said no, I’m going to say no too.” If that happens we end up with more judicial reviews.

Theresa May: First, tribunals do accept, and have been accepting—we have seen examples of this—information that has come forward after the original application was made prior to the appeal. The figures that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion quoted related to family visit appeals. We have already removed the ability to appeal on a family visit visa. It takes less time and is slightly cheaper for people to reapply and, if they have further information, to put it into the appeals mechanism. Of course, we need to ensure that the system is operating properly, and we will be looking to ensure that, through the operation of the ability to challenge administrative error, we ensure that people are making decisions fairly on the basis of the decision that is put in front of them.

David Burrowes: I welcome the fact that this Bill will enable the system to become effective, as well as humane. How will it impact on human trafficking, not least in relation to those who are human trafficked and are dealt with more as criminals than as they should be—victims?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend will know that we are looking at the whole question of how we deal with human trafficking, or—let us call it what it is—modern slavery. Next year we will introduce a Bill to deal with modern slavery, with a particular focus on dealing with the criminal gangs who undertake this activity. The launch of the new National Crime Agency gives us an even greater ability to deal with those gangs. I want to ensure that we not only start to reduce but end this horrible crime of human trafficking—modern slavery.

Meg Hillier: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I am going to make some further progress.
	Part 3 is about migrants’ access to services. We want to ensure that only legal migrants have access to the labour market, free health services, housing, bank accounts and driving licences. This is not just about making the UK a more hostile place for illegal migrants; it is also about fairness. Those who play by the rules and work hard do not want to see businesses gaining an unfair advantage through the exploitation of illegal labour, or to see our valuable public services, paid for by the taxpayer, used and abused by illegal migrants.
	Hon. Members will know that the right of non-European economic area nationals to work in the UK is restricted, and where the right to work is granted, it may be restricted to a particular employer or limited hours. Employers are required to ensure that their employees have the right to work in the UK and if they do not, they will face penalties, but the process for enforcing those fines is complicated. The Bill will streamline that process, making employers think again before hiring illegal labour.
	Let me turn to the national health service. Many temporary migrants are currently allowed free access to the NHS as if they were permanent residents. Such an approach is extremely generous, particularly compared with wider international practice. Our intention is to bring the rules regulating migrant access to the NHS into line with wider Government policy on migrant access to benefits and social housing. That means restricting access to free NHS care to those non-EEA nationals with indefinite leave to remain and those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK. Under this Bill, other migrants will have to contribute.
	Temporary migrants seeking to stay in the UK for more than six months will have to pay an immigration health surcharge on top of their visa fee. I assure the House that this surcharge will make the system fairer and will not undermine our aim to attract the brightest and the best. We have carefully examined what other countries do and will ensure that the UK offer is a competitive one in a tough global market.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Theresa May: I want to make more progress.
	Dealing with migrants is not new for the NHS. There is already a framework for charging other countries. The NHS must enforce it and recover the cost of treating foreign nationals from foreign Governments, and all of us in government will work with it to make the system work.
	The Government also want to ensure that illegal immigrants cannot hide in private rented housing. We are already working with councils to tackle rogue landlords who provide beds in sheds and illegal, overcrowded accommodation. Under the Bill, we will go further and have the necessary powers to deal with rogue landlords who rent homes to illegal migrants.

Diane Abbott: Is the Secretary of State able to quantify the number of foreign nationals treated by the NHS who are not entitled to free care and who came here solely and deliberately to get free health care?

Theresa May: I suggest that the hon. Lady look at the audit conducted by the national health service that was released today. It makes it absolutely clear that we are talking potentially about several hundred millions of pounds across the NHS when we consider the number of people who come here and are able to use the service without contributing, who come here as health tourists and who come here and use the service when they should not be able to do so. That is why the Bill is absolutely right.
	I say to Opposition Members who say that somehow it is wrong to ask people who come to this country to contribute, that it is only fair to the millions of hard-working people who pay into the NHS through their taxes that somebody who comes here to live for a period of time should be asked to contribute. It is only fair also to ensure that when people come here to use the NHS, or use it when they are here and their Government should be paying, that we actually recoup that money.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Theresa May: I will give way to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), because I have not done so yet.

Barry Gardiner: The most recent migration statistics quarterly report by the Office for National Statistics was published in August 2013 and it noted that the net flow of long-term migrants was 176,000, compared with 235,000 in June 2010, when the right hon. Lady’s Government came to power. That suggests that the figure of 25% cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) when he intervened earlier is right and that the right hon. Lady’s figure of 33% is wrong. Will she confirm that those are the latest statistics and that the reduction was by 25%?

Theresa May: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard, he will see the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). I said that net migration has come down by a third from its peak in 2010. That figure is absolutely correct, because in September 2010 the figure was 255,000 and the latest figure, therefore, is a fall of 31%.

Diane Abbott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I hope it is a point of order rather than a point of frustration. I shall discover which.

Diane Abbott: Is it in order for the Secretary of State to suggest that anyone in this House thinks that people who are not legally eligible for NHS care should not have to pay when all I am doing is querying her scare statistics?

Mr Speaker: People are free to suggest what they like. These are matters of debate. Of one thing I am sure, having known the hon. Lady for 16 years: she requires no protection from me or, for the most part, I think, from anyone.

Theresa May: I have to say that this morning’s reaction from the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), to the proposal to charge for use of the NHS shows that the Labour party is going to be on the wrong side of this argument, because people in this country want to see people being treated fairly in relation to the NHS.

Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Heidi Alexander: rose—

Theresa May: I want to make a little more progress.
	Of course, as I said earlier, many private landlords already make checks, on a tenant’s identity and credit status, making it difficult for illegal migrants to rent properties from them. However, not all landlords do it, so we propose to replicate the long-standing requirements for employers to check the immigration status of those they are about to employ.
	We are not asking landlords to become immigration experts. Those who undertake simple steps will have nothing to fear and there will not be a penalty. Rogue landlords will face penalties, hitting them where it hurts—in their wallets. This will make it harder for landlords to house illegal immigrants and harder for illegal immigrants to settle in the UK.
	It is not excessive regulation. It is a proportionate approach to a significant problem and we have listened very carefully to those who have warned us of the consequences of not doing this properly. We will make it easy for homeless and vulnerable people to prove their entitlement through simple documentary requirements. We will have a statutory code of practice, making it clear that if landlords racially discriminate they will be breaking the law. We will exempt those parts of the housing market, such as homeless hostels and student halls of residence, where further regulation would not be appropriate.
	The Bill will also introduce new rules to crack down on illegal migrants accessing banking products and services in the UK. Many illegal immigrants are already prevented from opening bank accounts, thanks to existing identification and fraud requirements. However, there is no specific rule to stop illegal migrants opening an account in the UK. This Bill will require banks and building societies, for the first time, to refuse a customer who wishes to open a new current account when they have been identified as an illegal immigrant.
	Having tackled the ability of illegal migrants to work, access health care, rent property and open bank accounts, I also want to ensure that illegal migrants are denied driving licences. The Bill will give legislative force to the current administrative practice, but the measures go further, giving us the power to revoke licences. We will do everything we can to make it harder for illegal migrants to establish a settled life in the UK when they have no right to be here.
	Part 4 of the Bill tackles sham marriages and sham civil partnerships undertaken by a fraudulent couple for their own immigration advantage. The Home Office estimates that, every year, between 4,000 and 10,000 applications to stay in the UK are made on the basis of a sham marriage or sham civil partnership. Registration officials already have a duty to report suspected sham marriages and sham civil partnerships to the Home Office. The number of reports of suspected sham cases has risen in recent years, with 1,891 reports received in 2012. At the moment we have the ridiculous situation whereby we cannot always stop a marriage or civil partnership that a registrar believes to be a sham. The current 15-day notice period provides very little time for the Home Office to act before the ceremony takes place.

Henry Smith: Having listened to the debate so far, I think that hon. and right hon. Members and the public at large will be astounded that these sorts
	of basic restrictions on illegal immigrants have not been the law of the land for so long. It is about time that we passed this Bill.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that members of the public will say it is right that we are fair to people living in the UK and to those who have come here legally, and that we ensure that those who are here illegally do not find it easy to stay and that we are able to remove them.

John McDonnell: A lot of the individual sanctions will be dealt with by statutory instruments. So far it is clear that if a landlord fails to comply and lets a property, they will face a potential fine of £3,000 for each disqualified adult allowed to occupy the property. What sanctions, fines or prison sentence will be given to a doctor or nurse who treats, or a vicar who marries, a disqualified adult?

Theresa May: We are not talking about people not being able to receive treatment in the national health service. We are talking about two things in the NHS. First, when people come here and use the NHS, we will ensure that the NHS recovers the money from their country that it should be recovering. It has not been doing that as well as it should be. Secondly, when people come to stay here for a limited period—for more than six months, but not permanently—we will ask them to pay a surcharge to reflect the fact that they might use public services when they are here.
	The Bill will increase the marriage and civil partnership notice period to 28 days—

John McDonnell: Will the Home Secretary answer the question?

Theresa May: I have tried to explain the point about sanctions in the NHS by pointing out that the hon. Gentleman’s assumption about the system that we are putting in place appears to be incorrect. He also mentioned members of the clergy who conduct sham marriages. If he looks back at the press from the past couple of years, he will see that members of the clergy have been arrested and prosecuted for conducting sham marriages on purpose.
	The Bill will increase the marriage and civil partnership notice period to 28 days in England and Wales, and allow for it to be extended to 70 days when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a marriage or civil partnership is a sham. The Home Office will investigate the genuineness of the couple’s relationship and consider taking immigration enforcement action when we believe it to be a sham. If the couple do not comply with the investigation, we will prevent a marriage from taking place. Should a sham marriage or civil partnership go ahead, couples will not gain an immigration advantage, but will be removed or prosecuted.
	Fixing the immigration system cannot be done overnight. There were too many problems with the system that we inherited for that to be possible. However, the Bill will help us further along the road. It is frankly ridiculous that the Government have to operate such a complex system to deal with foreigners who fail to abide by our laws. It is ridiculous that the odds are stacked in favour of illegal migrants. It is unacceptable that hard-working taxpayers have to compete with people who have no
	right to be here. The Bill will begin to address those absurdities and restore balance. I commend the Bill to the House.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have made a series of claims about immigration and the Bill, many of which do not stack up. They said that there would be action against illegal working, but there is nothing about that in the Bill. The Prime Minister promised action against those who
	“deny work opportunities to UK workers.”
	Again, there is nothing about that in the Bill. They promised to reduce the “pull factor” for people from the EU. Again, there is nothing in the Bill about that. They promised to
	“reclaim our borders and send illegal immigrants home”,
	but border control has got worse and fewer people are being returned than ever. They promised—the Prime Minister said “no ifs, no buts”—that net migration would be down to the tens of thousands by the election. It is currently at 176,000 and recent figures show that it has gone up. There has been a lot of rhetoric and a lot of confusion, and people are concerned about immigration.
	We know that over many generations, people have come and contributed to this country: they have built our biggest companies, worked in our public services, and become great scientists, Nobel prize winners and even Olympic medal winners. We also know that in a global economy, in which people travel and trade more than ever, pulling up the drawbridge on all migration is not good for Britain.
	Stronger controls are needed. Migration needs to be managed and, yes, we should have a proper debate about measures to control immigration, deal with its impact and tackle illegal immigration. Unfortunately, that is not what we have heard from the Home Secretary today.

Mark Reckless: Does the shadow Home Secretary realise that we have already gone a little over half the distance from the very high levels of net migration that we saw under the last Labour Government to our target of tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands? Will she congratulate the Home Secretary on that progress?

Yvette Cooper: The most recent figures for net migration show that it has increased. The hon. Gentleman has chosen to support a target that ignores illegal migration altogether and that includes university students who contribute to the economy. Furthermore, he can claim that progress has been made in meeting the target if the number of British citizens who leave the country or who fail to return to the country increases. That is the target that he is pursuing.

Meg Hillier: Many of my constituents are first, second or multiple generation immigrants who work hard to prop up our NHS and other public services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that penalising people when their families come over by adding extra charges to every application is unfair on those people who are breaking their back for Britain?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that the system has to be fair for people who have come here over many generations and who have contributed to this country and continue to do so. It is right that people who come here must contribute and be able to support themselves. Equally, the system has to be fair to all. There are considerable concerns that the system is not fair. The Home Secretary’s proposals do not address those concerns.

James Clappison: In the light of the right hon. Lady’s comments, will she tell us whether she would have a target for net migration if she were Home Secretary?

Yvette Cooper: As we have said before, the problem with a net migration target is that it encourages more British people to leave the country or to remain in other countries. The Prime Minister has promised—no ifs, no buts—that he would reach the net migration target of tens of thousands by the time of the election. On the Government’s own figures, net migration is going up.
	We believe that the pace of migration matters. It is right to support measures that will bring the level of migration down, but we must also have serious measures to tackle illegal immigration and to ensure that the system is fair, including in its impact on employment and the workplace.

Theresa May: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the Home Secretary if she will tell us whether she regrets using the divisive ad vans in the first place.

Theresa May: I have already answered a question about the ad vans. Given that the shadow Home Secretary has not answered the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) asked about net migration, perhaps she will answer my question. Does she accept that the level of migration under the last Labour Government was too high?

Yvette Cooper: We have said that the pace of migration was too fast. It is right to have measures to bring the level down. We have said that many times. The Home Secretary has had every opportunity to apologise for the divisive ad vans, which she has admitted were a serious problem. I will give her another opportunity to intervene to do so.

Stewart Jackson: rose—

David Davies: rose—

Yvette Cooper: Hopefully the hon. Gentleman will apologise on behalf of the Home Secretary for pushing those divisive ad vans.

David Davies: May I say—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that there is an identity crisis that needs to be resolved. I think that the right hon. Lady was pointing in the direction of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson).

Yvette Cooper: I was indeed.

Mr Speaker: We will hear from T. C. another time.

Stewart Jackson: On the subject of regrets, does the right hon. Lady share the regret of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), who said in 2010 that having unmitigated and unplanned immigration from the European Union at the same time as 5.2 million people were on out-of-work benefits under the last Labour Government was a mistake that the Labour party needed to face up to?

Yvette Cooper: We have said that we should have had transitional controls for eastern Europe. Government Members need to consider how they can defend the fact that since the election deportations have dropped by 7% and deportations of foreign criminals are down by 14%, and how they can explain why the number of illegal migrants absconding at Heathrow has trebled since the election and why the number caught afterwards has halved since the election.

Dominic Raab: Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

Yvette Cooper: I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain that point if the Home Secretary will not.

Dominic Raab: The right hon. Lady is in a rich vein of contrition. Will she add to her list of apologies an apology from the last Government for signing up to EU rules that made it much harder to tackle benefit tourism and, on the point that she has just raised, human rights laws that made it much harder to deport foreign national criminals?

Yvette Cooper: There is nothing in the Bill about the matters that so concern the hon. Gentleman. Where is his apology for the fact that the number of businesses that are fined for employing illegal migrants has halved since the election? Again and again, action on illegal migration has got worse and enforcement has deteriorated since the election.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I want to make some progress on the measures that are in the Bill, even though a lot of the measures that we need to tackle illegal immigration are not in it. Let us consider the Bill before us. Some measures are sensible and we will support them. Some are confused and we await illumination on how the Government plan to make them work. Some areas raise genuine concerns, and in other areas the Government are not going far enough, particularly on the labour market and on illegal immigration.
	I am glad that the Bill includes stronger action against sham marriages. Indeed, we called for those measures. Like the Government, we listened to the concerns of registrars about cases where they feared abuse, but had too little time to ensure that investigations took place. We also called for stronger enforcement powers for UK Border Force officials. The problem is that the UK Border Agency does not use the powers it has in practice at the moment and enforcement has been getting worse.
	The Home Secretary talked about biometrics. We agree that there are some loopholes that should be closed for taking fingerprints, but she needs to explain why her Home Office Ministers endorsed stopping the
	fingerprinting of stowaways at Calais. This is not about a loophole in the law; it is about a loophole in practice that we raised with Ministers two-and-a-half years ago and which they refused to do anything about.

Theresa May: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the Home Secretary if she can explain why, two-and-a-half years ago when this was raised with her, the Home Office Minister agreed that it was right for UKBA not to fingerprint stowaways at Calais.

Theresa May: I suggest that the right hon. Lady checks her facts, because I believe the decision not to fingerprint clandestines at the juxtaposed controls was actually taken before the 2010 general election.

Yvette Cooper: And I suggest that the Home Secretary checks her facts, because in April 2011 we raised with Home Office Ministers the importance of restoring fingerprinting to Calais, which border officials had chosen to do. Two-and-a-half years ago, she refused to do that and she has continued to refuse to do that, and her Home Office Ministers said that was the right thing to do. I will let her intervene again if she will tell me that she will now, two-and-a-half years later, restore the fingerprinting of stowaways to Calais. Will she restore the decision to do fingerprinting at Calais? The Home Secretary is refusing, repeatedly, to restore the fingerprinting of stowaways at Calais, despite the fact that we have raised this with her and other Home Office Ministers repeatedly. Her Home Office Ministers have endorsed the decision not to have fingerprinting at Calais, not to be able to check illegal immigration and not to be able to follow up when people attempt to return to this country.
	We support measures to restrict access to British driving licences for those who are here illegally. In fact, we introduced those measures. As the Government have admitted, the changes were mostly brought in before the general election, but we are happy to support them all over again. It is also sensible to have stronger checks on bank accounts.
	There has been a principle stretching back over 30 years that overseas visitors should contribute for using the NHS. We will therefore support sensible contributions to the NHS from visa payments, and it would be helpful for Ministers to confirm that such payments will go to the NHS. It would also be helpful if Ministers confirmed whether they have dropped proposals for GPs to have to implement the same kinds of checks as private landlords before letting pregnant women see a midwife, or giving children the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination—both issues that doctors have raised as public health concerns.

Simon Hughes: If the right hon. Lady is honest, she will realise that Labour’s record on illegal immigration is far from glorious. I have indicated that I am willing to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on Second Reading, although I have criticisms of some aspects of the Bill. It would be helpful to know whether the official Opposition will support or oppose the Bill on Second Reading.

Yvette Cooper: I will set out the Opposition’s response on exactly that point in due course.

Diane Abbott: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how concerned GPs are, including the Royal College of General Practitioners, that they might find themselves acting as immigration officers? They feel that that would be contrary to the oath they take to serve and to heal.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Doctors have concerns about whether the proposals are workable in practice—the practical bureaucracy attached to the proposals—and the implications for public health. We think it is sensible to have better co-ordination between hospitals on, for example, cost recovery through the E111 system, but for any proposals it is important that the Government listen to GPs’ concerns.

Caroline Lucas: Building on the right hon. Lady’s point, does she agree that it is not only inhumane for doctors not to treat people with serious illnesses, but counter-productive? If somebody is here with a communicable illness, it is counter-productive for doctors not to treat them. This is just a nasty policy and a case of blaming foreigners to distract from the Government’s £20 billion of cuts to the NHS and the cost of reorganisation.

Yvette Cooper: This is a matter on which the Government still need to answer questions and they are confused about what they are proposing. The Bill contains limited measures, but they also seem to be setting out other measures that are not in it.
	The measures on landlords take up 16 clauses—a quarter of the Bill. This, it appears, is the Government’s flagship policy on tackling illegal immigration. The only trouble is that we have no idea how it is supposed to work. There are more than 400 European identity documents, and the Government have not explained whether private landlords are supposed to know which one is which. There are countless different documents to show that people are entitled to be here. Will private landlords have to know each one? On some figures, nearly one in five usual residents, including British citizens, do not have passports. What will they have to do to rent a flat? When the Home Secretary was asked two weeks ago about how this policy would be implemented, all she could say was:
	“There’s a lot of confusion.”
	That is right, and the Home Secretary has done nothing today to clear that confusion up.
	All these policies on driving licences, tenancy agreements and back accounts will, according to the Home Secretary, tackle illegal immigration. How much difference will they actually make in practice, even where the policy is sensible enough in principle? One does not need a British driving licence to drive in Britain and one does not need a British bank account to take cash out of a cash machine or to earn some cash on the side. What difference will the measures make to the growing number of people who are here illegally because they are less likely to be stopped at the border and less likely to be sent back home? Deportations are down by 7%. The number of people stopped at the border and turned away has halved since the election. The number of illegal immigrants absconding through Heathrow has trebled, and the number caught afterwards has halved. Six hundred and fifty thousand potential smuggling warnings were deleted by the Home Office without even
	being read, and 150,000 reports of potential bogus students were never followed up.
	There is still no answer from the Home Secretary about how many people came in without proper checks as a result of her bordersgate experiment. We get the same response from the Home Secretary each time: to blame the civil servants, to blame the landlords, to blame all migrants, to blame the technology and to blame the Labour Government. Her latest response is to blame the Minister for Immigration.

Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue of who comes in and out of this country is important. Does she share my concern at the delay in starting the tendering process for the e-Borders project? As we know, there were problems with the project under the previous Government and it is three-and-a-half years since the contract was terminated. Does she not agree that we need this as soon as possible?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government decided to suspend the contract three years ago, in 2010. There has been a complete freeze with no contract in place and no proper action taking place. He is absolutely right that we need not just proper checks in place when people arrive, but proper checks on deportations and departures to be able to take follow-up action on illegal immigration.
	What was the Government’s flagship policy to tackle illegal immigration, which was trailed by the Prime Minister, who this summer promised new action? It was to hire a man with a van to drive around in circles for two weeks. What was the Home Secretary thinking? Did she really think that people here illegally, who have ignored Home Office letters and avoided UK Border Force scrutiny, would change their minds because they saw one of her posters on an ad van? What did she think people were going to say: “Oh, thank goodness I saw the ad van today. I had just forgotten I was supposed to go home. Hang on while I pop out and get an airplane ticket”? Will she confirm that only one person has rung up to return? He did not even see the vans: he saw a picture in The Guardian. This has not just been a blunt instrument; it has been a complete failure. Will she admit that this has been a pointless gimmick from the start?
	Last week the Immigration Minister said that the vans could be rolled out around the country, but instead the Home Secretary strung him out and today decided that the policy is a blunt instrument and she will not do it again. Why did she do it in the first place? Will she stand up and tell the House how many people returned home as a result of it? The Immigration Minister said that only one person returned as a result of the ad vans, but will the Home Secretary say how many people have returned as a result of her ad van approach?
	This is not just about a policy that is ineffective and a blunt instrument. The Home Secretary sent the van around four London boroughs with the highest proportion of ethnic minority British citizens. One Brent resident—a British citizen—said:
	“As a child in the 1970s with migrant parents I remember how ‘go home’ was shouted at us in the streets and graffitied on walls. One of my earliest memories is of the panic I felt when hearing
	my parents discussing in hushed tones whether we would indeed have to ‘go home’, as we watched the National Front march on TV.”
	The Home Secretary agreed to that slogan. She agreed to send it round communities whose parents heard it from the National Front in the 1970s, and whose British citizens work in our public services, build our businesses, and fight in our armed forces today. She signed off and defended that policy, all for the sake of one person returning. She should be better than that, and I hope she is ashamed of what she did.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, because Brent was one area where the van came round. On the occasions when it did so, the division and hurt that it caused in the community was extraordinary. Does she agree that the policy could not have been introduced because the Home Secretary genuinely thought it was likely to inspire anyone to leave the country, and that instead it was a calculated political propaganda move? As such, her party should pay back to the taxpayer the cost of those vans.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and the Home Secretary should confirm that she will never pursue such divisive gimmicks again. That is beneath her and ought to be beneath the Government.

Pete Wishart: The policy was disgusting and embarrassing. What a dreadful episode it was, and let us hope it never happens again. On apologies, however, will the right hon. Lady apologise for the intervention by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in the summer? He had a go at Tesco and Next, but he got the place of Tesco’s base wrong. Will the right hon. Lady apologise to Tesco and Next for that “British jobs for British workers” nonsense revived by the hon. Member for Rhondda?

Yvette Cooper: The labour market is an important issue, and it is particularly important to ensure that employers are not exploiting low-skilled migration. I will come to that issue in a moment, but let me finish the point about illegal immigration.
	Instead of gimmicks, we need practical measures to help tackle illegal immigration. Why not improve enforcement? Why not reinstate fingerprinting for stowaways at Calais, as we have been urging the Home Secretary to do for two and a half years? Why not tighten up checks in the first place? Student visitor visas have now become too easy a route through which people come to Britain to work illegally. They do not even have to provide proper paperwork to show they have a place on a course. Numbers are up 70% since the election. Surely that should ring alarm bells for Ministers. The Labour party will table amendments to have proper checks on student visitor visas, stronger inspections and enforcement, and stronger action against employers who take on and exploit illegal migrants. If the Home Secretary is serious about tackling illegal immigration, I hope she will back our amendments and plans.

Julian Huppert: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but we must make some progress so that other Members can contribute.

Julian Huppert: The right hon. Lady mentioned student visitor visas. Is she aware how essential those are for many colleges and English language schools, and a whole ranges of other institutions around the country? Does she really want to damage their business?

Yvette Cooper: It is right to have a proper system that is fair and supports our economy, universities and higher education sector, but also prevents abuse. It is a concern that the hon. Gentleman’s Government are dissuading and discouraging university students who want to come here from all over the world, but he should also be worried about the potential for abuse of student visitor visas, as highlighted by the independent inspectorate. Concerns were raised, but because those visas are not included in the Government’s net migration target, the fact that numbers have increased by 70% does not bother Ministers, even though the inspectorate raised the risk of abuse.

Barbara Keeley: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way one more time, and then I must make progress.

Barbara Keeley: My right hon. Friend is perhaps moving on to what is not in the Bill. The Home Secretary said earlier that she wants to end modern-day slavery. Last week a dreadful case of modern slavery and trafficking ended with the conviction of a couple from Eccles who had brought a deaf 10-year-old orphan girl into the country, using the passport of a 20-year-old woman. They kept her as a domestic slave and subjected her to sexual assault. Is it not tragic that someone who is rescued, such as the victim in this case, and actually well looked after, might have been snatched back into trafficking, and ended up in a brothel or worse? The Government have not enacted measures to assign a trusted individual in such cases, although they could have done so in this or other Bills. How can we take the Home Secretary seriously when she has those opportunities yet does not take them?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It should disturb us all that an appalling two thirds of children who are rescued from slavery and trafficking go missing again and often become victims of the same traffickers or other groups. We need far stronger action on that; we owe it to those children who have been rescued, often from appalling conditions. We should not let them simply disappear again.

David Davies: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that one reason for that is that care workers in children’s homes are not allowed to physically restrain and prevent children from walking out? That is a result of the Human Rights Act, which was passed by her colleagues, along with the failure to deal with immigration that has led the Government to bring forward these urgent proposals today.

Yvette Cooper: If I had known the hon. Gentleman was going to raise such nonsense, I would not have let him intervene in the first place.
	Let me move on to some of the remaining elements of the Bill. People who come to Britain and then abuse British law should not expect to stay here, and Labour has previously supported action to ensure that article 8 of the European convention on human rights is properly interpreted in cases involving foreign criminals. We also believe that appeals should be speeded up—serious cases that go to Strasbourg certainly take far too long.
	The measures in the Bill do not deal with those issues, however, and instead it appears that the Government want to abolish appeals for whole categories of immigration cases because they cannot cope with the fact that they get so many decisions wrong in the first place. There are genuine and serious concerns about that approach because it turned out that the Government got it wrong in 50% of entry clearance cases that went to appeal. In managed migration cases that went to appeal, they got it wrong in 49% of decisions. In the majority of those cases the problem was Home Office error, so why not just put a bit of effort into getting the decision right in the first place? If those appeal rights are removed, many cases will cite human rights grounds to get an appeal and more cases will go to judicial review. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that that could cost £100 million, halving any savings the Home Secretary might hope to make.
	The real gap in the Bill is that is says nothing about the exploitation of immigration in the workplace. There is nothing to deal with employers who take on illegal migrant workers or to tackle the exploitation of legal migration by the undercutting of wages and conditions in the local labour market. There is nothing to deal with the lack of enforcement of the minimum wage, or employers who use loopholes in the minimum wage to overcharge workers for overcrowded accommodation and offset that against their pay. There is nothing to deal with agencies that recruit only from overseas and exclude local workers from their books, or employers who recruit for some shifts only from certain nationalities.
	All those practices are bad for everyone—they are bad for migrant workers who are exploited, bad for local workers who are undercut, bad for other businesses that are undermined and bad for our economy, which continues to depend on low-skilled migration being exploited in that way. The Government are doing nothing. The Labour party will set out amendments to give councils powers of enforcement on the minimum wage, close loopholes and tackle irresponsible agencies, and I hope the Government will support those measures.
	The Bill does not do what the Government claim it does. Some of the measures are sensible, some are confused, and some are of serious concern. They claim it tackles illegal immigration, but it does nothing of the sort. It fails to do enough to tackle the serious problems. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill as we believe it should go to Committee so we can amend and reform it, use the opportunity to introduce better and fairer controls to deal with the Government’s failures, and make immigration work for all.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A considerable number of colleagues are seeking to catch my eye. I have not, at this stage, imposed any formal time limit on Back-Bench contributions, but a certain self-denying ordinance on
	the part of each hon. Member will serve to help others to get in. We can be led in this matter by a notable paragon of virtue, Mr Robert Syms.

Robert Syms: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	I fully welcome the Bill. All hon. Members realise how strongly people feel about this very important subject. We do not have to knock on many doors before ordinary hard-working people who are trying to pay the bills and bring up their kids start to moan about the immigration system.
	The problem is that, over a number of years, the system has become somewhat dysfunctional. The Government have made it a high priority to have a firm but fair immigration policy. Hon. Members know that many legal migrants add fully to our country. Many create jobs, and there are many surgeons, doctors and others in the NHS. However, in our hearts, we know that many come to the UK to take advantage of us and see us as a soft touch, and that many are here illegally. In the Bill and a series of measures the Government have taken since 2010, they are trying to tighten the system and make it more robust, and to send a signal to the world that we are not a soft touch, and that we are determined to ensure that only people who are legitimately in the UK should be here.
	The Bill is sensible. It streamlines the process and begins to introduce biometrics; reduces the number of grounds of appeal from 17 to four; and restricts some of the rights under article 8. The reality is that all hon. Members deal with immigration cases. We know the nature of the game and how it is played. There are constant appeals and new applications so that time goes by and people who should not really be in this country stay here. I therefore welcome what the Government are doing. If we combine it with better management of the border authorities, we will make good progress.

Rehman Chishti: I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said so far. We need to get things right and acknowledge when things went wrong. One important factor is the hundreds of bogus colleges set up in our country over so many years, as a result of which thousands of people who should never have come to this country did so. The Government have closed 600 or so. That is the right way forward.

Robert Syms: There must be a balance, because many language schools generate foreign exchange, provide good education and feed people through to our universities. The Government have ensured that the ones that survive—some will prosper—do so because they are legitimate, but many people took that route here. That part of Government policy is very sensible.

Jeremy Corbyn: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about foreign overseas students, but does he recognise that, in the case of London Metropolitan university, the Home Office overreaction did a great deal of damage to Britain’s international reputation? Thankfully, that has mostly changed in respect of London Metropolitan, but do we not need to be slightly cautious, because overseas students bring an awful lot to the country?

Robert Syms: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s general point—that many overseas students bring a lot to the English language centres and the university sector—but that is no excuse for the university sector not keeping proper records and knowing what happens to students. I felt very sorry for the students involved rather than for the university, but the Home Office moved quickly to try to get them into other, proper institutions. The immigration authorities acted as responsibly as they could to deal with the difficulties some students faced.

Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that the success of the Government’s policy is reflected in the fact that student numbers have fallen in those institutions that most abused the system? That proves that the steps the Government took worked.

Robert Syms: My right hon. Friend makes a good point.
	We need to send signals to people around the world that we are serious about ensuring that people who are here illegally should not stay. That is why I welcome the measures on bank accounts and driving licences. There are concerns about private sector landlords, but if someone is about to rent out a £250,000 or £500,000 home, there is a good, solid logical reason for having the full documentation. After all, they want to collect the rent. Many residential landlords already take passport and other such details. The Bill is a perfectly common-sense approach to ensuring that there is a barrier for those who should not be here but no difficulty for those who have a right to be here.

Jake Berry: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that estate agents are obliged to take contact information—both photograph identification and proof of address—from tenants and landlords under money-laundering regulations. Does he agree that the measure in the Bill is a simple and reasonable extension of the existing regulations, which have worked so well?

Robert Syms: I agree with my hon. Friend. With the tightening up of measures on employers taking on workers, the measure to which he refers is one of a series to provide barriers so that we find people who are not here legally.

Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman says that the measures on landlords should pose no difficulty for people who already live here. When my parents first came to this country, landlords would routinely tell prospective black tenants that the room was gone. Does not the legislation bring us back to the situation in which people, rather than go through the rigmarole, will see a black face and say, “The room is gone”?

Robert Syms: I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns because of her family history, but the reality is that people who are legitimately here have many protections. All the Government are saying is that, if someone wants to rent a property, they should have a passport. For simple, sensible reasons such as getting credit, most people need some kind of documentation, so the problem will not be insurmountable.
	On the NHS, I welcome the health surcharge. Nothing annoys my constituents more than the feeling that resources that should be devoted to their care are being used by people who do not have a right to them. All
	hon. Members know that the NHS has not followed its policy of collecting money. The easiest thing to do is say that someone does not come from abroad and collect the money as if they were British citizens. The Government’s measures are sensible.
	Because our constituents feel so strongly, we must have a firm but fair immigration policy. If they do not believe the Government take immigration seriously, the only people who benefit are extremists. We know that many people have extreme views on immigration.

Anne Main: I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend hears pleas for unaffordable, high-value and new treatments for cancers and so on, but the pot is not limitless. Our constituents wish to know that those who have contributed to the pot will be able to take from it in their time of need. We might provide universal health care, but we do not provide global health care.

Robert Syms: Absolutely. The measure does not affect accident and emergency or short-term care, but it is a signal that the Government are serious. We should not squander resources on those who do not deserve them, particularly if people are waiting for operations. One figure used today is that 4,000 more doctors could be employed if we collected the money. There is therefore a prize for tightening the system.
	Given the number of hon. Members who want to speak, I do not intend to go on much longer. I broadly welcome the thrust of the Bill. I would be happy to serve in Committee if asked, and I look forward to the Bill’s progress through the House, because it is an important priority for the British people.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who has struck the right tone for debating immigration policy. I am glad that Labour Front Benchers will support the Government while tabling vigorous and robust amendments in Committee. That is how the House should discuss immigration policy. I am very much against the arms race that seems to have developed in the past few years, in which political parties compete with one another to show that they are tougher on foreigners. If the House of Commons can demonstrate in the debate and the vote the belief that we need to tackle illegal migration but that we need a fair and just system, we will send out a powerful message.
	I first served on a Bill Committee 26 years ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). We have made journeys to the Front Bench, but have ended up on the Back Benches again—she more recently than I. We have therefore heard some of this discussion before, because with every immigration Bill Governments always say that they want to be tough but fair. We still end up with an immigration Bill before us every two years. Although Governments are willing to do something about immigration, especially illegal immigration, that is not borne out by what actually happens.

Julian Huppert: The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the number of immigration Bills. Does he share my concern about the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny
	of the Bill—or indeed of previous ones—and does he think that the Home Affairs Committee could have done that well? Would it not be good if some of our previous recommendations had been included?

Keith Vaz: As a member of the Committee—there are four Committee members in their places this afternoon—I am not going to offer to take on more work, given our work load. As the hon. Gentleman knows, every quarter we look at the work of the Home Office on immigration, and I am certain that some aspects of the Bill will be included in the work that we do. We will therefore scrutinise some aspects of the Bill but not its entirety.
	In pursuing an immigration policy that is fair and just, we need to be very careful with our enforcement methods. We also need to welcome decisions taken by the Government when they move in the right direction. The Home Secretary was right to shelve the ad vans, and I congratulate her on doing so. As the shadow Home Secretary and others have said, those vans caused enormous concern in the communities. We do not have a figure for how many people got into the vans and asked for a lift back to the airport, but the vans cost £10,000 and were out for six days in inner-city London. As yet, we do not know how many people have gone back. When the pilot is over, we will need those figures. Meanwhile, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for his superb Adjournment debate. It gives us all heart to know that we can call for an Adjournment debate to advocate the abolition of an aspect of Government policy and for it to happen two weeks later. It gives us comfort to know that we have some powers as Back Benchers.

Jeremy Corbyn: Although I agree with my right hon. Friend about the ad vans, is he aware that immigration officials are still hanging around underground stations in London, stopping people at random and asking for papers? That creates a deeply unpleasant and hostile atmosphere. It is very ineffective in achieving its aim, but it creates much community tension in the process.

Keith Vaz: It worries me if that is happening; it is certainly not the best way to enforce immigration policy. The best way is to go through the proper process of making an application. If the result is negative, the person should leave the country. I have just had figures from Capita and the Home Office for the number of people who have left the country as a result of the £2.8 million contract that the Home Office gave Capita—although I cannot understand why it was not possible for Home Office officials to write the letters and send the e-mails instead of giving the job to a private company. According to those figures, 20,000 cases have been closed as a result of Capita’s activities.
	I will come to my second bit of praise for the Home Secretary at the end of my speech, but I first wish to highlight a couple of issues that cause me concern. The first is the issue of landlords checking people’s passports, which will cause huge problems. The shadow Home Secretary said that people might have to look at 400 different European identity cards and documents. I am concerned that ordinary landlords who are not trained in immigration policy will simply not know the difference between leave to remain, indefinite leave and other Home Office statuses placed on non-British passports. Most landlords, when
	they grant tenancies, already ask for copies of people’s passports. The risk is that the only people who will be able to get accommodation are those with British passports. That means that a lot of people with a perfect right to remain here will not be able to get accommodation because landlords are too scared or do not understand the law.
	I recently visited Calais to look at the border and I asked our excellent border officials how they were able to test whether certain passports and documents were forgeries. They brought out this very big, expensive machine. It was about 10 years old and not the most sophisticated piece of equipment, but they told me, “We use this to find out whether a document is a forgery.” We cannot expect landlords to have such machines—they would not be able to afford them—but if we do not train them or have regular inspections, which we could not afford, it is difficult to know how the provisions will work in practice. In theory, it is a brilliant idea, but it is totally unworkable in practice.

David Lammy: Does my right hon. Friend know that up to 40% of the British population do not have a passport and do not travel abroad? Many of those people are poor, and they will not be able to get housing because landlords will not take the risk.

Keith Vaz: I did not know that and I thank my right hon. Friend for that information, which suggests an even greater problem with what the Government propose. Those Members who are lucky enough to serve on the Bill Committee—not me, I should inform the Whips—will need to look at this issue very carefully.
	My second concern is the removal of rights of appeal. This is a crazy idea. The one way in which people can be sure of whether they can stay in the country or have to go is through the appeals process, whereby someone with the authority of a judge looks at the case. There is nothing wrong with the appeals process. I know that the Minister for Immigration recently said that immigration lawyers get too much money and that one of the purposes of the Bill is to cut their income. I declare an interest, as my wife is an immigration lawyer, although she does no legal aid work. If the decision making is right in the beginning, cases would not have to go to appeal.
	The Minister for Immigration is prepared to listen to points made by Members of Parliament. Whenever we have put points to him, he has listened carefully, and I think that he should listen seriously to the idea of creating a hub in London. He has talked about the need for administrative reviews. The problem with those reviews is that unqualified people have to look at legal issues. I am not sure whether the same immigration officials who said no at the first stage are the right people to say no at the second stage, but that is what happens with the entry clearance operation. If someone is knocked back on a visa, but has a right of appeal, they go to the same post and talk to the senior immigration officer who has to make the decision. It would be a much better idea—and I am sorry that the Labour Government did not do it—to create a hub in the UK for cases that have been knocked back. People could go to a senior official at the hub and put arguments for people to come into the UK.

Jake Berry: The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the case of Amy Houston, a girl from my constituency who was killed by an asylum seeker. He made appeal after appeal after appeal. Owing to the length of time that those appeals took, he was able to establish the right to a family life by fathering two children in this country. He killed that young girl with a motor vehicle, and he is not the sort of person we want to welcome into Britain. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need these reforms to stop such cases in the future?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. After 26 years as an MP, I get frustrated when people come to my surgeries on Friday evenings and say, “We want to stay longer.” I feel they have no right to stay, but I am not an immigration officer and do not know the history of their case. Multiple appeals do not help, but the solution is a quick and robust decision. We must tell people, in a timely way, whether they have a right to remain in this country, and if they do not, they ought to leave. That is when the enforcement process should begin and end, not 10 years after someone makes an asylum application, when they have established a family. It is very difficult to tell people to go back, when faced with a loving family and children looking into your eyes who do not want to go to a country they know nothing about. It is the failure of the system that creates such misery, and that is what we need to end.
	Finally, I wish to make two quick points. First, the Minister is due to appear before the Select Committee shortly—I will not give him the date now, because he is deep in conversation with the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—and when he comes, we will want real, practical dates for the introduction of the e-Borders programme. As I have said, the Minister listens to the House’s concerns and is prepared to act accordingly, but in my view it is not acceptable that three and a half years after the e-Borders contract was cancelled we still do not have tendering.
	In case my right hon. and hon. Friends think that that is all the Government’s fault, I must say, I am afraid, that the previous Government’s handling of the e-Borders project was lamentable. It is an absolute disgrace that anyone should sign a contract for an e-Borders programme worth £750 million and not tell the company what they expect and when they expect it. That is why we have an arbitration process that has been going on for two and a half years and which will cost the British taxpayer millions of pounds. This is a lesson not just for a future Labour Government, but for the present Government. When they sign procurement contracts, they must have benchmarks.
	I say to the Minister, however, that we do not have to wait until 2015; we can have exit checks now. He has not written back to me since his last appearance before the Select Committee, when I asked him to confirm that there were no exit checks on departure. [Interruption.] No, the Minister has not. Mr Speaker, when you or I leave the country, the airline has a lot of information on us: it knows how we booked our ticket, sometimes which hotels we are staying in, whom we are travelling with, which seat we are on—we can book our own seats—and so on. When we leave at Heathrow airport, they look at our boarding cards, but they do not check
	our passports. It would be easy to introduce these checks now, and it would be a big win for the Government —much better than ad vans. They could place immigration officers at departure gates—it would not create any queues—to check people’s passports as well as boarding cards. That way, they would know who was going in and out. It is not as brilliant as an e-Borders programme, but it would be the first stage of knowing who has left the country. I hope the Minister will give special attention to that point.
	Finally, on the administration of the Home Office, I give full credit to the Home Secretary for abolishing the UK Border Agency, but it will only have been worth abolishing if we get something better. Over the past few weeks, I have been trying to get answers from senior Home Office officials to simple Select Committee questions about the number of people with the right to remain in the country and the number of people who have applied for further leave to remain. In the end, I got the answers half an hour ago, after I said that I would come to the Chamber and name the officials who had not replied to my letter. I do not want, as the Chairman of a Select Committee, to have to do that, but when people write to Ministers and officials, they need a reply. That goes not only for Select Committee members, but for members of the public; members of the public want timely replies.
	New legislation will work only if the Minister and the Home Secretary improve the administration of the Home Office on immigration and visas issues. The Home Secretary abolished the UKBA because she said it was closed, secretive and defensive. If at the end of the year we are having exactly the same problems with the same officials in the same jobs, answerable to the same line managers, which is what they were told would be the case, we will be disappointed. At the moment, their administrative changes have a fair wind, but we will want to see a real difference in how immigration policy is not just agreed by the House, but implemented after it becomes legislation.

Sarah Teather: Last month, one of my constituents—I will call him Philippe—attended an asylum-screening appointment at Lunar house. He had a history of serious ill treatment in Cameroon and had in his hand a referral to Freedom from Torture from his very worried advocates, so one would have expected him to be treated with care and attention when he arrived for his screening appointment. It is worth reading the whole of his statement—it took me some time to do so—to understand what happened to him over three days in September. It gives a picture of what happens to people when they try to navigate Home Office bureaucracy. I want to tell hon. Members a little about what happened to him, because there is a danger that this debate will be about headlines and statistics, but will forget the very people we are being tough on—the very people who are the subjects of the Bill.
	Reading all that my constituent said, one gets a sense of his fear and nervousness when he first arrived at Lunar house with all his documents in his hand, and then the abject rudeness with which he was treated, the dismissals, the disbelief and the downright incompetence; and the petty squabbles between contractors unwilling to go beyond the letter of their own instruction and offer basic, normal human compassion and basic, normal
	information to my constituent. Hon. Members need to read it all to understand his fear, confusion and bewilderment, to follow him from the first moment, when he arrived, with nervous trust, for his asylum-screening appointment, to the moment when, in vain and with frustration, he tried to make the official at Lunar house appreciate that he was there for an agreed appointment and to get her to read his referral to Freedom from Torture. In vain, he tried to make his point through the interpreter about where his belongings were, but instead he was arrested, handcuffed and taken to Harmondsworth. Reading his statement, one gets a sense of just how frightening that is for somebody previously detained in their own country and of its impact on that individual.
	Finally, when Philippe arrived at Harmondsworth, rather late at night, somebody realised he should not have been there; somebody eventually checked his documentation and realised that he had originally turned up for a routine asylum-screening appointment, and he was taken back. Eventually, after petty squabbles, which he witnessed, he was dumped in a hostel without any documentation, without being told where he was and without being given an address. There followed a distressing 48 hours, during which he had a paranoid episode and ended up lost on the streets of south London. He had one contact, one human being, who went out of their way to help him. Someone from a church in Brent who had been working with him drove around the streets of south London to find him and then took him into her own home and reconnected him with his lawyer—the best and worst of humanity across three days.

David Davies: The hon. Lady paints a moving picture, and I am sure we all sympathise with her constituent, but does she agree that these mistakes happen because a large number of people are coming over, abusing the system and preventing us from helping those most in need, which is exactly what the Bill is designed to prevent?

Sarah Teather: No, I do not accept that. This happens because of the culture of disbelief in the Home Office, and it is that culture that needs to change, yet I see nothing in the Bill that will have any impact on the quality of decision making or on how individual officials treat constituents such as mine when they go with their asylum or visa applications. In my 10 years as an MP, I have seen countless examples of this behaviour, as all Members will have done. Those of us with the highest levels of immigration casework will have seen more, but it is a source of huge frustration for many MPs that our advice surgeries are spent mostly dealing with stuff that the Home Office should be dealing with.

Seema Malhotra: The hon. Lady is making some powerful points about the human cost of the way our immigration system works. Has she, too, experienced cases like those in Feltham and Heston of people who have been given leave to be here and to work but have struggled for months at places where they have been given jobs because they are waiting for documentation? Their lives, and those of their families, are on hold and they then fall into poverty.

Sarah Teather: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. These are the sort of people I worry will fall foul of the Bill because they struggle to provide their
	documentation. We know that there are a lot of people who fall through the net when they are first given refugee status and end up destitute. They make up the bulk of the people whom the British Red Cross deals with in terms of food parcels because they cannot prove their entitlement to benefits. A significant number of people have the right to stay but will struggle to be able to prove it.
	Personally, I have never seen an organisation more in need of checks and balances on its own use of power than the Home Office or, indeed, its predecessor, the Border Agency. Instead, the Bill gives powers that it is not equipped, nor frankly able, to meet and powers that it cannot be relied upon to exercise properly. Where it exceeds or abuses its power, or simply fails to do the job, it will be shielded from challenge in many cases and there will be no redress whatever. The implications of the Bill cannot be understood without also placing it in the wider context of legal aid changes and proposals to restrict judicial review.
	The problem is that the impact on individual lives gets lost in the grandstanding of headlines. When immigration is all about reducing numbers on a spreadsheet to meet an arbitrary cap or creating arbitrary political dividing lines and traps for opponents to fall into, the subjects of the legislation—the human beings at the centre of it—are somehow invisible. I am weary of a politics that creates and defines enemies in order to demonstrate potency but, frankly, it angers me to see politics do that at the expense of those who have the least power to change their own futures. All three Front Benches, I am afraid, are at it, including my own, scrabbling over the mantle of toughness, chasing opinion polls and, in some cases, wilfully whipping up fear and loathing in the process. It is staggeringly careless with lives and with community relationships that have been built up over a long time.
	I am afraid that whatever the damage that is done by the detail of the Bill when, I dare say, it is ultimately passed, some of the worst damage has been done in our debate in the lead-up to it. The language with which this was brought forward is what really causes the damage in terms of community relations. I remind hon. Members of the debate we had earlier about the Home Office vans. That is a case in point; it had almost no effect on the ground except to whip up real tension between communities. My constituency was one of those areas that was targeted by the vans.

Anne Main: I can understand the passion with which the hon. Lady is speaking and she is making a very sensitive point, but does she agree that there is an element to this that involves the prevention of exploitation of vulnerable people who are brought in illegally, treated badly and fall outside the system? If their pimps and traffickers are unable to do that because we have tougher immigration laws, we will free those people from being put in that awful position. I had a young lady brought to me whose passport had been taken off her. If people can come to our country legally, it will stop those who want to be able to take advantage of them outside the system.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members to make interventions that are brief? We have a lot of colleagues to accommodate and I am keen to do so.

Sarah Teather: I am certain that the commitment of the hon. Lady on the issue of human trafficking is very real. However, there is nothing in this Bill that will make that situation any better for the individuals who are caught up in it. It is worth remembering that, for a lot of vulnerable people who come here, it is very difficult to enter the country legally. Many of the legal routes have been closed down. Someone coming here and applying for asylum may have entered the country illegally and then claimed asylum. Understanding that is important, as is understanding some of the detail. I am in danger of speaking for too long and I know that other hon. Members want to speak, but we must understand that those who get caught up in this may be some of the most vulnerable people.
	There is a great deal in the Bill that will have catastrophic consequences on the ground. In most cases, the problem that it seeks to fix has been poorly defined and the solutions ill thought through. All of it is incredibly rushed, a point made by a number of hon. Members. A number of my hon. Friends have also made the point about there being no pre-legislative scrutiny. It seems to me that the detail has been negotiated by an exceptionally tight group of people within the Government, and very little time is being afforded to this House to consider it. One day on Report is extraordinary. The very small period of time between the Bill being published and Second Reading means that most of the briefings from relevant organisations came in yesterday afternoon as they have just begun to grapple with the detail of this Bill. There is a significant amount of detail and the devil will be in making sure that the detail is correct.
	It is worth noting some of the increases in power that the Bill gives. There is an extension of removal powers and the application to family members—including British citizens, I should add, who are not excluded from the Bill. Those matters will be in secondary legislation and we have no way of properly scrutinising the extension of powers. There is a significant extension of immigration officers’ powers to use reasonable force, despite the fact that whether the Border Agency previously used reasonable force has been a matter of constant dispute. It is completely within the culture of the Home Office, it seems, always to assume that force is the only way to manage any situation, which was precisely the culture within Government when I was negotiating the details around the ending of child detention. We sought to try to change that so we did not always go to the maximum end of force in enforcement procedures to get a family to understand that they had exhausted the appeals process. I cannot see how an organisation so psychologically addicted to the use of such powers should properly be given more powers until it has learnt how to use the powers it already has well, and certainly until it has learnt from the work that has been done elsewhere within its vast structure to try to change the culture.
	Staggering, too, are the proposals on bail for immigration detainees, which would effectively allow the Home Secretary repeatedly to issue removal directions in order to prevent an application for bail. No account would need to be taken of changes in circumstance, or of the health of the detainee or their family. There was an earlier intervention about criminal bail. I want to make the point that some of the detail of that intervention was not fair because, within criminal procedures, one automatically eventually
	comes up for bail, whereas within immigration detention there is no automatic right to have one’s bail application considered.
	We detain more people than any other European country except Greece, and Greece only detains people for very short periods. We effectively operate indefinite detention. The UNHCR has made clear its profound concerns about UK policy on detention and made it clear that bail hearings ought to be automatic. The removal of appeal rights was spoken about by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). That effectively removes appeal rights for all areas of managed migration, an area that has traditionally had very high rates of success on appeal. Given the appalling nature of decision making in this area, it seems to be particularly absurd to remove appeal rights. It is also likely to result only in more claims under judicial review or under article 8, which the Government say they want to try to reduce. It seems utterly nonsensical.
	It was perhaps the redefinition of article 8 that made me shudder particularly. It completely ignores the test around the best interests of children and ignores all case law in this area. No doubt this is a deliberate attempt to overrule case law, but certainly it flies in the face of our obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It ignores children under the age of seven—those children who have been here for fewer than seven years—and will of course apply not just to adults in terms of their right to family life with any of their children, but to unaccompanied migrants in decisions on their immigration cases. I find it very difficult to see how the courts are going to interpret this, but certainly it will have a chilling impact on the Home Office’s own decision making in this area. I am rather frustrated that the careful work we did on the ending of child detention, on the culture within the Home Office and on how we treat families seems to have been completely cut across by this very political statement in the Bill. It also cuts across the Children and Families Bill, which is still making its way through the Lords as we speak.
	Perhaps the most absurd proposal in the Bill is that on landlords’ checks. I have listened to some of the discussion on that and there is some naivety about the property market in London in terms of understanding what it means to try to rent a property and the difficulty of getting in there first. If there is any doubt whatever about someone’s immigration status, there is no way they can rent in my constituency. Many people find it difficult to prove their documentation. The claim that this will all work well because a similar system involving employers has worked well flies in the face of our experience of the employers’ checking line, which often gives out inaccurate information resulting in people being unable to get or keep a job. It is extraordinary to propose a similar system that could affect someone’s right to live somewhere.
	The catch-all term “illegal immigrants” is being used to describe the people who will be caught by the Bill. I remind the House that some of those people have no status because they are stuck in the black hole of the Home Office’s legacy system. Others might not quite have achieved the definition of “refugee” under the terms of the Geneva convention, yet cannot be returned to their own country because it is not safe to do so. I would count people from Syria among those affected in
	that way, and I saw many people in that situation during the Iraq war. Unless people are on section 4 support, they will find themselves falling foul of many of the Bill’s provisions.
	The NHS levy will apply to in-country applicants, some of whom will have been working here for many years. Some of my colleagues have said that they are prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on the Bill. Personally, I am not prepared to do so. I see very little in it that is worthy of a Second Reading. In fact, it was extremely difficult to find anything in it that I could support or that I found well thought through. I shall vote against Second Reading this evening, and I encourage others who disagree with it to join me in the No Lobby, rather than just adding to the impression that we are all happy for a Bill as ill thought through as this to pass on to the statute book.

Fiona Mactaggart: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather). I shall be doing the same as her at the end of the debate, and I shall make my remarks shorter simply by agreeing with her remarks about children and about bail detention. Those are critical issues that need to be addressed during the debate.
	I have campaigned for more than 30 years against injustice in our immigration laws. Indeed, one of the reasons that I stood for election in Slough rather than anywhere else was that I wanted to follow the tradition of Slough Labour MPs who had voted against the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. That legislation had the effect of making whole groups of people stateless, and I was proud that that injustice was remedied in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
	I recognise that we can achieve change and get justice even when the debate on immigration is as toxic as it is at the moment. I also recognise that people feel deep anxiety about immigration, particularly in an era of austerity when they are feeling insecure about their jobs, their pensions and about their families’ futures. However, this Bill is operating the worst form of dog-whistle politics in blaming migrants for problems that are not of their construction. I know how much migrants bring to Britain. Slough, a migrant town, is the third most productive wealth-producing town in Britain outside London.
	After years of campaigning, I am pretty familiar with issues such as the Wilson committee’s report of 1967, which stated that it was
	“fundamentally wrong and inconsistent with the rule of law that power to take decisions affecting a man’s whole future should be vested in officers of the executive, from whose findings there is no appeal.”
	Yet that is in effect what the Government are proposing to do in this Bill, 42 years after the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968.
	In introducing the Bill, the Home Secretary told us stories about cases of repeat applications by criminals and abuses of the appeals system. I suppose this is why the Home Office loses cases so frequently! We are not talking about a load of radical Trotskyist judges; we are talking about judges who decide that the Home Office is wrong almost half the time. The Home Office is now
	saying that the judges will not make those decisions in future, and that it will resolve those matters through administrative appeals.
	Let me tell the House about the administrative reviews that already exist in parts of the system. A judicial review in the upper tribunal involved a case in which an applicant had given the Home Office their credit card number, and—guess what—the Home Office had typed it out wrongly. The consequence was that the application was not treated as a proper application because it was not accompanied by the full fee. The case had to go as far as the upper tribunal before a judge decided that it was a proper application, and that the Home Office had written down the credit card number wrongly.
	Such cases are not rare. I have a constituent whose husband wrote the cheque to accompany her application, but instead of putting £865, he put 865p, because he is a twit. The consequence is that her application is now out of time, and she has no appeal. Another case involved a response from an entry clearance officer who, having stated that the immigration rules require a spouse to have good spoken English and to have passed a speaking and listening test, said that the applicant had passed that test but failed the English writing test and was therefore refused entry. We have asked for reviews of all those cases, but—guess what—we have been told that there will be no review or that the review has upheld the original decision.
	Those of us who deal regularly with the Home Office know that it is incapable of doing what it is supposed to do now. Yet through the Bill, it is grabbing a whole lot of work for itself from the appeals system. The result is that it will break. It might have got rid of the UK Border Agency, but the Home Office will break if it tries to do all those things.
	We need to heed the words of the Wilson committee report. On decisions as serious as whether someone should be allowed to live with their husband, everyone should have the right to have that decision subjected to an independent review. That is why we need an appeals system. There are groups of people who currently have no right of appeal, but the Home Office admits that it cannot do anything about them. There is a large Zimbabwean community in my constituency, but the Home Office is not returning any of its members to Zimbabwe because of the situation there. They are hard-working people who are desperate to work, yet they are in limbo. In passing responsibility for immigration control from those previously responsible to other bodies such as landlords and the health service, the Home Office is putting those people at greater risk. They are already at horrible risk. I have spoken to constituents who turn to illegal activities or to prostitution in order to feed their children, because they are not allowed to work.
	The Government say that it will be easy for landlords to check out the status of applicants, but any of us who deal with employers know that the current Home Office advice service for employers is gummed up: they can never get through on the phone and the process takes ages. Many of my constituents who are allowed to work here perfectly legally have been unable to prove it because of Home Office inefficiency, and therefore lose their jobs. A similar advice service is now going to be offered
	to landlords. It might be fine in an area where landlords have to try hard to find tenants, but that is not the way competition works in the south of England; it is all the other way. Large numbers of people will therefore be refused housing to which they should be entitled.
	That is why the Residential Landlords Association—not noted for its lobbying of Parliament—has written to say that it is
	“seriously concerned that the proposal depends on untrained landlords doing the work of UK Border Agency staff without support and with the threat of penalties if they get it wrong.”
	A programme on television recently highlighted a number of landlords in London who were already operating a racially discriminatory rental policy. They do not need much encouragement to continue with that, or to do worse. That is the risk that the Bill will create.
	On health, the Bill also suggests that there should be a prior payment. People should pay, if they are here temporarily, for health care—there is no problem with that—but the choice optioned in this Bill is the wrong choice. There is a reason why the consultation, the details of which I have been asking for for more than a month, has been published this morning. Let me quote the analysis we heard about in Health questions:
	“The analysis is a top-down estimate based on data from the Census 2011, the International Passenger Survey 2012 and Immigration and other statistics from the Office of National Statistics…These are the best available data in the public domain”.
	What that means is, “We licked our finger and put it up in the air. We are guessing.”
	Many countries have a requirement that migrants should, for example, have an effective health insurance system. That would not be a bad thing to do and is a more popular response in the Home Office consultation than the proposed levy, yet the Home Office has rejected that idea and proposes to introduce a levy that will burden particular nationalities more than others.
	The Bill shows the arrogance of the Home Office by refusing to have its decisions appealed. It shows that the Home Office, in an island nation where it is possible to have effective border controls, does not care about the racially divisive consequences of increased internal immigration control. It shows that the Home Office has ignored its lack of capacity for doing this and, shockingly, includes proposals that were not prefigured in the consultation and that will bear down on victims of human trafficking.
	The consultation on health payment contained a specific commitment about victims of human trafficking. Until now, overseas domestic workers have not been charged for health care. There is a reason for that—they are vulnerable and exploited. Frankly, the National Crime Agency is not making a priority of tracking down that particular form of human trafficking. We know how hard it is for those people. There are shocking stories of people with chronic, often infectious diseases who are prevented from getting access to health care by their exploiting employers. Under these proposals, they will be more vulnerable than they were before.
	I am very glad that the Home Office is planning to introduce a modern day slavery Bill, but I am truly shocked that through this Bill they will reduce even the pathetic rights that modern day slaves have today. We have to chuck it out. There are some good things in it, but as a whole piece of legislation, it is truly unacceptable and we should reject it.

John Howell: It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), although I shall not be agreeing with her. It was also a great pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who is no longer in his seat. I agree with him about the reasons to support the Bill. He spoke of the impact immigration has on the streets and it is true that this is a matter of great concern. The immigration rules have been reformed to cut out abuse where it is rife, but there is still more to do, particularly on landlords.
	Let me start with the report by the Migration Observatory in Oxford entitled, “Migrants and Housing in the UK: Experiences and Impacts”. It is a very short report that sets out some key findings, one of which is that the foreign-born population has significantly lower home ownership rates than the UK-born population. The detail shows that the foreign-born population is three times as likely as the UK-born population to be in the private rented sector. If we drill down further, we can see that recent migrants are more than twice as likely as the normal foreign-born population to be renters—76% are more likely to rent. Foreign-born individuals have lower ownership rates than UK-born individuals and have greater representation in the private rented sector.
	Recent migrants have very different accommodation standards. The report states that
	“new migrants moved into temporary accommodation upon arrival…However, after realising that their stay in the UK could be permanent it is common for migrants to look for better housing choices”.
	The evidence from that statement is clear: if we want to look for new migrants and potentially illegal immigrants, we need to look at the private rented sector. It is a key part of trying to ascertain where they might lie within the system. The evidence so far suggests that that is what is happening.
	The UKBA and Ealing council recently visiting six properties and the agency found that 22 out of 39 individual tenants, a large percentage, were illegal immigrants. Of those 22, 19 were detained. Of those 19, nine entered the country without leave, eight were overstayers, one was a failed asylum seeker and one was working in breach of his visa conditions. In such circumstances, the correct duty should be for the landlord to check for residence status. There is a long list of excluded tenancies in the Bill and the Secretary of State has the right to grant such a right to a person who would otherwise be disqualified.
	The obligation on landlords—the choice of words is crucial—is to make “reasonable enquiries”. Private landlords are not expected to be experts in immigration; they are expected to make reasonable inquiries. They are not supposed to know the details of all the 400 or so immigrant visas that were mentioned earlier. They are merely meant to make reasonable inquiries. We are looking to secondary legislation to include a list of acceptable documentation.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend is making an important point. He will no doubt be aware of a 2006 study by Cambridgeshire constabulary that considered crime trends arising from the 2004 accession, particularly in houses in multiple occupation in Peterborough. That
	showed the disproportionate impact of crime on women living among largely male occupants of such houses as a result of poor landlord stewardship. Is that not an important issue that the Bill will address?

John Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that. I was not aware of that valid point and I am sure it adds to our debate.
	The penalty payment is £3,000 per individual. A public consultation ran over the summer and the majority of landlord representative organisations opposed and disagreed with the principle of the policy. Most of the comments related to untrained British civilians undertaking the work of immigration officials, but the policy is a positive way of landlords contributing to British society given the proven link between migrants and rented accommodation. That contribution to British society will also involve freeing up the housing stock.
	The policy will not conflict with landlords’ contractual arrangements. Indeed, if we ask the members of the organisations rather than the representative organisations we find that many members undertake such checks anyway—63%, I think. The Minister is nodding. The Bill is simply asking that all landlords do what the best landlords already do.
	There is no reason why the system should not be clear and easy to comply with, and I accept that it must be. However, I do not accept that landlords will be confused about who is caught by the provision and I do not accept that any substantial cost burden will be passed on to tenants. I accept that publicity is important, and that we have to let landlords know what is happening. There is a need to be precise if we are to get the message out. I received calls from constituents on the matter when it was first mooted, as they were confused and wanted assurances about what was right. I was able to give those assurances. The issue of potential discrimination, which the hon. Member for Slough raised, is a real one, and I look forward to guidance from the Government to overcome that.
	I shall conclude, as other Members wish to speak. This is a simple process for landlords, and it is something that they already do in the main. I urge the Government to make it simple, so that we can keep a check on migrants.

Heidi Alexander: It is a convention to say that it is a pleasure to follow the preceding speaker. I shall not go as far as that, but it is probably appropriate for me to follow the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). He focused on provisions relating to new regulations for private landlords, and I, too, shall focus the substance of my remarks on that aspect of the Bill.
	Before I do so, however, I want to make a few general observations about the Bill as a whole, which is a combination of the good, the bad and the ugly. Tightening the law on sham marriages, improving our ability to deal with dodgy immigration advisers, and speeding up the deportation of foreign criminals are good ideas. Addressing the length of time that it takes to deal with immigration applications, thereby reducing the number of years in which people have to live in limbo, literally not knowing whether they are coming or going, is a
	reasonable aspiration. However, I am not convinced that the right checks and balances exist in the new decision making and appeal process outlined in the Bill. It is a complex area. The hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) is right to draw attention to the fact that briefings on this part of the Bill were issued late in the day. The Government cannot be confident that the review that they wish to implement on immigration decisions will be any better or of higher quality than the initial decision-making process in the Home Office. There should be an independent review mechanism for appeals on immigration decisions.
	Where the Bill is undoubtedly ugly is in its unworkable and unrealistic proposals to outsource the job of immigration officials to letting agency staff and private landlords up and down the country. Such a change in the law may or may not contribute to creating the Home Secretary’s “hostile environment”, but it undoubtedly risks inflaming racial tensions and smacks of the era in which landlords in the UK put signs above their doors proclaiming “No blacks, no Irish”. I for one do not want to return to those days. I want an immigration system that is firm and fair, and which is in the best interests of everyone in our country. I want a system in which the rules are enforced properly and in a timely fashion. No matter what Ministers say, the immigration arm of the Home Office—the former UK Border Agency—is a total mess. No amount of nasty rhetoric turned into sentences on the statute book will make up for the basic failures in administration, efficiency and competence that have characterised the Home Office for far too long.
	I said that I wanted to focus on the Government’s proposals for private landlords. Part 3 introduces a new duty on landlords to check the immigration status of prospective tenants before properties are let with hefty fines if flats and houses are rented to people without leave to remain. There are already tight rules about who can access homes rented from councils and housing associations. On a superficial level, I suspect that many people would say, “What’s the problem with asking private landlords to do that? It sounds like a good idea.” However, there is a serious problem with the proposals because of the way in which that would work in practice.
	I have been a Member of Parliament for three years, and in that time I have dealt with my fair share of immigration cases. When people come to my surgery with reams of paper from the Home Office I sometimes find it difficult to ascertain exactly what their status is. It can be complex and confusing: people do not always fall into neat, defined categories. Sometimes three people in a family have indefinite leave to remain, but one, inexplicably, is still waiting to hear from the Home Office. Sometimes a Home Office decision to refuse an application is overturned by the tribunal, but then there are inordinate delays in sending individuals new documentation to confirm their status. Perhaps all small private landlords and letting agents have an insight or training in the immigration system, or a special link to the Home Office, which I do not have, but I think that is unlikely.
	What is going to happen? Let us imagine a busy letting agency in south-east London, where demand for rented property routinely exceeds supply. Two people turn up to rent a flat that has just been put on the
	market. One is a woman of Nigerian heritage—someone who came to this country as a child, went to school here and now works as a nurse. She has indefinite leave to remain and she has become a British citizen. The other person is also a British citizen—a white woman, a nurse too, but with an English-sounding surname. The admin person in the letting agency is presented with Home Office papers by one, but not the other. They know that if they let to an “illegal immigrant” they might be fined £3,000. They are confused by the papers. They have a stream of people waiting to be seen, and they have other things to do. Which of the two people do they go for? I do not think that I need spell out to hon. Members what might happen in that set of circumstances.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend makes the case very vividly. Does she agree that even though we deal with immigration paperwork week after week, we find it confusing, so what would it be like for a letting agency, which sees it only rarely?

Heidi Alexander: I entirely agree, and I believe that what is proposed will lead to racial profiling in the letting of properties that could end up on a scale reminiscent of the 1950s.
	We are told by Ministers that they will set up a hotline to provide a 48-hour checking service for landlords. It will have to be a Home Office hotline like no other. Confusion, procrastination and obfuscation characterise Home Office hotlines at the moment. Why will this one be any different? How will landlords and letting agents know who is living in a house apart from the individual who signed the tenancy agreement? What happens when someone’s leave to remain expires during their tenancy but they submit an application for renewal that is caught up in intractable delays and administrative chaos? How will the Home Office even know if properties are let privately if the Government refuse to set up a register of private landlords?
	Recent migrants often rent a room from a friend of a friend. Sometimes whole families live in one room in a house. There is no tenancy agreement, and they do not go to a letting agent. Anyone would think that these people are going to letting agents on the King’s road to secure their properties, but that is not true: these transactions take place in the shadows of our economy. This policy is unworkable and unrealistic, and it is deeply unpleasant. Last week in London, the headlines were of racial discrimination in the letting of property—people being told that flats and houses were no longer available because of the colour of their skin. Those headlines made me feel ashamed to be a Londoner. Does the Minister really think the proposals will make the situation better? Of course not. They will make it worse—much, much worse.
	I have lived in London and in Lewisham for more than 10 years. I love it. It is a bit lively at times, but I am pleased that I live there. I love being able to go to Lewisham market on a Saturday morning and thumb through African fabrics for sale, buy jerk chicken from a van in Catford or go to the beautiful presentations and performances of the local Tamil supplementary school. I am pleased that I do not live in a monocultural place where everyone looks the same, sounds the same and has the same views and life experiences. People generally get on with one another in Lewisham but tensions do
	exist, often simmering beneath the surface. Some young black men feel that the police do not treat them fairly. Some people tell me of problems in getting work because they have a foreign-sounding surname.
	When in May this year the BNP wanted to march from Woolwich to the Islamic centre in Lewisham, it made me feel sick and worried—worried about my home, my neighbours and my community. The Minister may not have to worry about such things in the Forest of Dean, but let me tell him and the Home Secretary that they are playing a dangerous political game which I am not prepared to participate in. I believe our immigration system must be firm in order to be fair. I believe its enforcement needs to be timely, professional and effective. I do not think outsourcing immigration control to private letting agents and landlords is the answer, and I have grave concerns about the impact of this policy on community cohesion in areas such as the one that I represent.
	So I go back to what I said at the beginning. I have not talked about the things that I think are positive in the Bill. There are some things which I believe should happen and which I can support, but because of what I have explained in the past 10 minutes, I cannot support the Bill tonight, but neither will I oppose it.

Nicholas Soames: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on raising some very important points about which she spoke with great knowledge, and I respect her decision on this important but difficult matter. If I may, I will not follow her down that avenue, as I want to make a more general speech about the importance of the Bill.
	Several comments have been made in the House today about why there seems to be an immigration Bill every two years. It is a fair point, but it is perhaps worth saying that it has been some time since Governments have felt able to deal with this matter in a serious way. It is inevitably a long march in a civilised country when we have to take steps to remedy something that has gone very badly wrong for our country. I welcome the Bill as a further step forward along that path in this Government’s determined effort to get immigration down to a sensible level that is acceptable to the public and above all serves the interests of our country.
	I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration on their relentless focus on what needs to be done to restore long-overdue order in our immigration system. Let us not forget why we are here today. Regrettably, the dysfunctional Labour Government lost control of our borders. Net foreign immigration on their watch was nearly 4 million, while roughly 1 million British citizens left in that period. This is an extraordinary scale of immigration, absolutely without parallel in our history. We now face the massive task of integrating these huge numbers into our society.
	The Balanced Migration group, which I co-chair with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), is especially concerned about the impact on our population of continued immigration on anything like this scale. On current projections, based on net migration of 200,000 a year, immigration will account for two thirds of our population growth—not, incidentally, one half, as the
	BBC repeatedly and erroneously tells us. Such immigration would add a further 5 million people to our population in the next 15 years. This is completely unacceptable to the British public. According to a recent opinion poll, two thirds of the public want to see drastic action to reduce immigration and three quarters of the population want to see it reduced.
	The Government have already had considerable success, for which they have not been given due credit. Non-EU migration—that part of the equation which is subject to Government action—has been substantially reduced from 217,000 in 2010 to 157,000 in 2012. This has been achieved without constraining access for business to the skilled migrants that it needs if it and we are to prosper. There are no limits on the transfer of international staff. The only cap is on work permits, and only half the 20,700 available work permits have been taken up. There is much to be done to improve delivery, but the policy is clearly right. Nor has there been any significant effect on our universities, which have seen student visa applications increase by 10% between 2010 and 2012. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), the fall in student numbers has been at the colleges where much of the abuse of the system had been taking place.
	It is sometimes claimed that the Government are sending out mixed messages; in one week they are encouraging business and tourism, in another they are clamping down on immigration. In fact, there is no contradiction between encouraging legal migration and discouraging abuse of the system, as is the purpose of this excellent Bill. It is right that we should seek to encourage tourists, business visitors and genuine students, while reducing the scale of permanent migration. That is how we in this country should reap the benefits of a globalised world, while ensuring that we are not, as a nation, overwhelmed by it. It is that fear which drives so many people’s anxiety about immigration.
	The Bill tackles a long-standing weakness in our immigration system—namely, the relative ease with which those who originally come quite legitimately can stay on illegally once their visa has expired. These overstayers frequently work below the minimum wage. Those who do so undercut the wages of British workers. They also allow unscrupulous employers to undercut employers who offer decent wages and conditions. Overstayers also add to the pressure on our public services, so it is right that they should be firmly but fairly discouraged from staying on. An important consequence of such illegal immigration is the added pressure that it generates on our housing, which already faces a crisis. I therefore welcome the proposal in the Bill for landlords to carry out checks similar to those now required of employers, although I recognise that the nuts and bolts may need some examination. I note the points that the hon. Member for Lewisham East made in this regard.
	The proposals to close off access to driving licences and to bank accounts to those who have no right to be here are entirely sensible and I hope they will be widely supported. I remain concerned, however, that we still await news of any effective measures to ensure that our national health service is no longer wide open to all comers, whether or not they have contributed to its enormous costs. The proposals in the Bill are, to put it mildly, extremely modest.
	I recognise that we cannot and should not look to medical staff to carry out what are essentially immigration functions. That is why we have suggested that joint Home Office/Department of Health offices should be established entirely separately from GP practices in order to decide on eligibility. We keep being told that there is no evidence of significant abuse of the NHS. That is simply because there are no effective checks in place. If we were to turn off all the speed cameras, there would be no evidence of any significant speeding. So, with the exception of this important lacuna concerning the NHS, I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister—

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I would like to draw to his attention the detailed, independent and peer-reviewed research that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health published this morning, which shows that the NHS fails to collect some £500 million a year. We are not proposing to withhold treatment from people, but trying simply to ensure that people who are not entitled to free health care make a fair contribution towards it.

Nicholas Soames: I have seen that, and I welcome the appointment of a senior figure as chairman of the NHS body that will look further into this. I simply say that if my hon. Friend really thinks that the amount of money involved is only £500 million, he is well wide of the mark. Part of my group’s concern about that paper is that it simply does not go far enough. It makes too many heroic assumptions on the most enormous margins, and I and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead will be making available to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister further important details from the NHS that we have been given and which show that these figures are well south of the figures that need to be dealt with.
	As I say, having regard to that important lacuna in the Bill, I nevertheless wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister on their courageous and successful efforts to tackle one of the foremost concerns of the British public. I wish my right hon. Friend every continued success as a Conservative Government move towards a system that has the confidence of the public.

Barry Gardiner: I am proud to speak in today’s debate. The speeches of my hon. Friends the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) were quite magnificent. They dealt with this issue from their own experience, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, who always speaks so eloquently on these matters. I would even say—those who know me will know how much it costs me to do so—that the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) also made a very good speech.
	The quality of the speeches comes from the nature of Members’ constituencies. It was instructive that the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) should say that
	when the Bill was published he received correspondence from his constituents who, of course, are the landlords, while the constituents who wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East and to me are the tenants. Each of us in this place is properly reflecting the views of our constituents, but on behalf of those against whom the Bill will be so penal, I hope that hon. Members who do not share the same constituency issues and problems might take note of some of the speeches that have been given already.
	I want to focus on the heart of the Bill, which is that the Home Office argues that the immigration appeals framework is flawed. To whom will it give the work? An internal Home Office review estimated that approximately 60% of the volume of allowed appeals are due to casework errors. The Home Office believes that the appeals framework is flawed, but part of the problem with that framework is the poor quality of its initial decisions, which then clog up the appeals process. How can the Home Office believe that an administrative review process will properly go to the heart of the problem? It will not.
	As the Bill stands, refused applicants will be required to apply for administrative review with 10 days of receiving the decision. All of us who have extensive correspondence with the Home Office know that most of the decisions come back to lawyers. So lawyers will be required to make that administrative review application within 10 days, but the Home Office must know full well that that simply will not happen. It is not happening at the moment. Many of our constituents do not receive notification from their lawyers until several weeks after even a positive response has been received from the Home Office. The very idea that such a review could be made within 10 days is quite simply incredible. Those officials who have told, written to and persuaded Ministers that this can be done know only too well that that is false.
	Under clause 11, where there is right of appeal to the first tier tribunal, refusal decisions made on erroneous grounds or without reference to highly relevant information simply cannot be challenged. The option to raise challenges to unlawful decision making before the High Court in judicial review proceedings will remain, but that means that the time of the High Court judges will be used in pointing out basic errors in Home Office decision making. The Home Office states that the immigration appeals framework is overtly complex, slow and expensive, but reducing the number of appeals will cause the number of applications for judicial review to soar. That will be more expensive, slower and less effective, but it will be the only lawful option left for many cases. The High Court is likely to become the first port of call for those opposing deportation decisions. Again, immigration officials in the Home Office know that. They know that they are taking a bottleneck from one part of the system and putting it in another part where it will be more costly to the public purse.
	In the light of the proposed reforms to judicial review funding and challenges to legal aid, including the proposed adoption of a residence test, judicial review will not be practically accessible for a number of cases, leaving individuals without any form of redress and the Home Office with no imperative to improve its processes.

Mark Reckless: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Gardiner: In one moment.
	I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), who made the interesting point that without the speed cameras we cannot see things going wrong. On the same principle, if we take off the monitoring, the Home Office will not improve its processes. The light that judges can currently shine on what is going on in the Home Office to show where it is incompetent, where it is taking arbitrary and flawed decisions, will no longer be there. According to the Home Office’s own statistics, 32% of deportation cases and 50% of entry clearance applications were successfully appealed last year. That means that the initial decision was wrong. We need the judges to be able to keep that focus on those wrong initial decisions. Yet the Government’s response to this high margin of error is not to seek to improve the quality of their decision making, but rather to reduce the opportunities for challenge. Instead of improving the bad administration and inefficiency at the heart of the Department, the Government are shifting the responsibility and attacking due process.
	The administrative review process already exists for overseas applications, but my own experience of entry clearance manager reviews is that they are slow and of little better quality than entry clearance officers’ decision making. It is difficult to believe Ministers’ estimation that an administrative review would be processed within 10 working days of an application given the historic backlogs that already exist in the Home Office.
	The Department has included in its impact assessment a summary of the ongoing costs and benefits of the changes to appeals. It has come up with a figure of £261 of benefits through a decrease in appeal costs. Interestingly, however, it has not included administrative review costs in the cost side of the analysis. It acknowledges that those costs will exist, but it has put in that column the word “unknown”. They are unknown, but the Home Office could have estimated them and did not, because that figure would have made the cost-benefit analysis come out in a way that the Minister did not wish. That is shameful.
	In response to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made about the problem of landlords having to check people’s status, the Home Secretary said that we already had such a system for employers. We do, and I will read a letter of 14 December last year from an employer to an employee, whom I will call RS. It states:
	“I am writing to advise you that we have received notification from the UK Border Agency regarding your entitlement to work in the UK and would like to invite you to an investigation meeting to discuss this and other aspects of your right to work in the UK…I must advise you that you are currently suspended (no payment) pending further investigation as we have liaised with you and unfortunately you have not provided us with the necessary documents to confirm your eligibility status within the UK.”
	A week later, the employer wrote to RS again, stating:
	“I am writing further to the investigatory meeting held on Tuesday 18th December 2012…We have received notification from the UKBA to advise us that they cannot confirm your status to work within the UK. We advised you of this notification and requested that you provided us with further documentation…I am therefore writing to you to confirm that you are required to attend a formal disciplinary hearing”.
	That was on 21 December. I had become involved in the intervening period and written to the UKBA about the case. It confirmed to me on 19 December that the case
	had been logged on its computer system, and that from that date the employer should have got a positive response when phoning the employer checking service. I understand that a manager checked on 7 January, but again, the system showed a negative response.
	On 9 July, seven months later, I got a letter from the Home Office, which read:
	“Thank you for your letter of 18 June with enclosure on behalf of”
	RS. It stated that it had received her application on 27 July 2012—a year previously—
	“and it is now still awaiting consideration…I am sorry to hear that”
	Ms RS
	“is experiencing problems with her employers. She may be interested to know that employers can check the eligibility of prospective employees to work in the UK by using the online Employer Checking Service”—
	which was precisely what her employer had done the previous December, when she had not been logged on it, and every week and month since. The Home Office has done nothing, and a woman has lost her job and livelihood. The Home Secretary holds that up as an example to show that the system is already working. I think not.
	Let us not be down on the landlords, though. I have a letter to the Home Office from a landlord, Mrs Patel, which states:
	“I can confirm that”
	Mr KA
	“is my tenant. He lives at the property with his wife and three children. I understand that he is in great financial difficulties”—
	that is because his case has been in limbo with the Home Office for 15 years—
	“and I have accommodated this only because he has three very young children. However, I am unable to continue with this arrangement as I have a mortgage and other bills to pay. I would appreciate if his claim could be dealt with urgently so he is able to get help, as I am no longer able to let him stay at the property without paying his rent. I don’t wish to see him homeless, as he has three young children.”
	That is a landlord who is acting like a human being. The Bill asks that she instead act like an immigration officer. Tenants often have limited leave to remain in this country and apply for additional leave to remain. During the pending period, what can a prospective landlord do? If they do not know their prospective tenant’s immigration status, they will not take them on.
	I have to respect your wish for others to be allowed to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, although there are of course many cases that I would like to cite. I must finish, however, by talking about the racist van that affected my community so dreadfully this summer. The Government claim that the objective was for people to realise that they could get assistance in going home. However, every person whom the Government could deport has received a letter telling them that. Mr KN has been signing on every single month for 12 years, and on every one of those occasions an immigration officer could have detained him and taken him for deportation. They have not done so. They know where every one of the people targeted by the van lives, but they have not bothered to go and ensure that they are detained and deported, because they do not want the costs. The idea that the racist van was sent out to remind people that they could go home,
	when thousands of people are not being deported with the full knowledge of the Home Office, shows that that Department is the most dysfunctional in government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. If we seriously want to get everybody in, we will have to average about 10 minutes a speech. If we carry on in the same way, a lot of Members will drop off the end of the list.

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I heard what you said, but would it not be more useful to put a time limit on speeches so that we can all get in?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is up to me, but I thought that hon. Members would have enough respect for each other to ensure that everybody gets in. I thought that they would help each other by taking a little less time in order to allow others to take part, which is why I did not want to be dictatorial about it.

Stewart Jackson: It is 16 years since the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and I stood in the same hall in Wembley, he winning his seat and I losing by 19,000 votes, and his speech felt like every one of those 16 years as it passed by.
	I welcome the Bill and want to talk about the general issues it deals with. I think that it is courageous and principled, because what we are talking about is one of the most important functions of any Government: to protect the country’s borders and, most importantly, to allow the public, of all creeds, colours and religions, wherever they come from, to have faith, trust and confidence in those borders. This is a dividing line between the Government and the Labour party. I think that it is the height of cowardice that Labour Back Benchers have adopted this mealy-mouthed, curate’s-egg approach yet, for purely political reasons, will not have the courage of their convictions to oppose the Bill in the same way they “rubbed the right’s nose in it” during their time in government. If they really believe that this is a bad Bill, why will they not vote against it tonight? They will not do so because they know that that would be unpopular with voters.
	Opposition Members say that the Government should be ashamed of the ad vans, but where was the mandate to inflict unmediated, unmitigated, uncontrolled and unplanned immigration on this country? There were between 2 million and 3 million European Union migrants to this country, when the LSE assessment was 13,000 to 15,000, and unprecedented levels of non-EU migration. There was no mandate, and the Labour party should hang its head in shame for never going to the British people with an honest prospectus for that policy.
	I will take no lectures from a representative of the Scottish National party about the poison of chauvinism and nationalism. If it is all right to aim that at English people in order to propagate the ridiculous policy of breaking up the United Kingdom, it would be best for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) not to say anything about it—

Pete Wishart: Are you trying to say I am a racist?

Stewart Jackson: No, I am not saying that, but if the hon. Gentleman is attacking the Government side for being racist, as he did in his Westminster Hall debate, I say that chauvinism and nationalism are bad and that he should be mindful—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think that I need to help a little bit. In fairness, we are on immigration, but independence for Scotland has not happened, so the immigration part will not apply at the moment. It will obviously help us all if we can carry on with the debate.

Stewart Jackson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	With regard to the rationale for immigration, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee found in 2008, as indeed did the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, that large-scale immigration had a minimal impact on the economy holistically. I pay tribute to the Government for having the guts to listen to people and take appropriate action in a responsible, reasonable and measured way. They have taken action before on things that have caused real problems for all communities. The hon. Member for Brent North is not the only one who represents a diverse, multicultural society; I have 10,000 eastern European migrants in my constituency and 10,000 voters of Pakistani heritage. The question is what is good for the whole community. We all know that when we go to those wonderfully moving citizenship ceremonies at the town hall there is a feeling of cohesiveness about being a British citizen. Those people who have followed the correct route and done the right thing are just as angry and concerned about the impact of illegal immigration as anyone else, irrespective of their race or ethnicity.

David Ward: The hon. Gentleman started his speech by saying that the number of new arrivals in this country had been vastly underestimated. Presumably he was talking about migrants from eastern Europe. How many of them would have been captured by the Bill?

Stewart Jackson: I will move on to EU migration later, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and we have discussed the issue before.
	The Government have taken action on sham marriages, bogus colleges, seasonal agricultural workers—a controversial decision a few weeks ago, but I think that the Minister made the right call—and access to the NHS. I think that that is absolutely right. We can be proud of having reduced net migration towards the tens of thousands, as we heard in the earlier exchanges between the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary. Given that, it is not unreasonable for us to wish to have in this country good quality new people from around the world who want to be British citizens, people who speak English and make an economic contribution to our society. We want a colour-blind scheme whereby we attract highly skilled people who can make a serious impact on society, not least in terms of improving themselves and their family.
	I welcome all the powers in the Bill, particularly the review of article 8 of the European convention on human rights. I put my cards on the table. I make a straightforward declaration to the House that I would vote to leave the European Union. I am a member of Better Off Out. I would have us out of, or at least suspend us from, the European convention on human rights, like Sweden, because of the perverse decisions the European Court has made. I do not believe that a foreign legal entity should be second-guessing our sovereign Parliament and our courts, and I will take that message to my constituents in due course.
	I have two slight general criticisms of the Bill. It might seem strange, but I agree with the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart): I do not believe that the robustness and veracity of the data collected under both Governments —this one and the previous one—are sufficient for us always to make rational decisions on immigration. The Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, in particular, need to be making a better fist of collecting data. Too much of this debate is based on anecdote and on historical figures that do not make much sense when looked at in terms of real life and the particular pressures caused by mass migration. There needs to be a proper cost-benefit analysis of the displacement of mass migration, historically and in future, particularly as we look towards the situation with Romania and Bulgaria.
	It is hard to countenance the fact that this is the Labour party of Keir Hardie, Clement Attlee and the Labour Representation Committee, given that it imported 2 million to 3 million low-paid, low-skilled eastern European migrants, some living in slum housing, at the same time as consigning 5 million people to out-of-work benefits, seemingly for the benefit of capitalists and big business. Had the Conservative party presided over such a record, the Labour party would rightly be deeply critical. We need a cost-benefit analysis of the young people in pockets of this country who remain on welfare and who are unskilled, untrained and on low wages because of Labour’s deliberate policy of mass migration while in power.
	The Bill misses an opportunity to cover EU migration. I have previously rehearsed for the House the issues in my own constituency, with 34,000 national insurance numbers created for eastern European migrants in just seven years, a tripling in the number of GP registrations, and 19 schools with more than 40% of children speaking English as an additional language. Those are real pinch points in different geographical areas across the country. They may not exist everywhere across England and Wales or the United Kingdom, but they are certainly major issues in my constituency. The situation in Peterborough is acute. Having said that, we were the city that welcomed the Ugandan Asians when they were expelled by Idi Amin in the 1970s; we have a very proud record in that respect.
	The Government need to look again at the non-contribution-based benefits regime. That is a vital issue. If we are to keep within the confines of the free movement directive of 2004, we must consider aligning our benefits regime with the regimes of other countries that do not the have large-scale benefits tourism that we have potentially had. The European Union Free Movement Directive 2004 (Disapplication) Bill, a ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced in October 2012, contained some very important measures about registration of EU migrants, access to
	benefits, deportation, criminal activity, housing waiting lists, GP registrations and so on. Unfortunately, only some of those have been taken up by Ministers.
	This Government have taken the right decision, not particularly because they want to be electorally popular but because they have listened to people. They have understood the great sense of resentment and anger out there among very many people—people who are not part of a social liberal elite, who do not read the right newspapers and did not go the right schools but feel an inherent sense of helplessness and resentment. My warning is this: if we do not give vent to the legitimate concerns of the vast majority of decent people who pay their taxes and are kind and neighbourly, then we give an opening to fascists, racists and extremists like the English Defence League and the British National party. In the mother of Parliaments, we can debate these issues because we are not afraid to do so. It might be uncomfortable for the Opposition or for some Government Members, but it is right to have that debate. I commend the Bill and will enthusiastically give it my support.

Pete Wishart: I wish I could say it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but I cannot. The only thing I will say is that when it comes to a world view and political values, he and I are probably on the opposite sides of the spectrum. His intemperate remarks about Scottish independence do him no credit whatsoever. He wants to pull up the drawbridge and leave the European Union and other institutions, whereas we want to join the world and we welcome the fact that the world will welcome Scotland as an independent nation.
	The Government’s stated aim with this Bill is to make the UK a more “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants. I give the Minister 10 out of 10 and say to him, “Well done and pat yourself on the back,” because the Government have most certainly achieved that with this Bill. They have just made the UK an even more intolerant place for the rest of us to live in.
	This Government have also achieved something I never thought I would see in the 12 years I have been a Member of Parliament: an Immigration Bill that is even nastier and more pernicious than all those that have gone before. All these right-wing immigration Bills have to achieve is two simple things: kick as many people as possible out of the country and prevent as many people as possible from getting in in the first place. That is what every single immigration Bill we have had from right-wing Governments, whether they be Blairite or Conservative, has done: kick out as many people as possible and prevent as many people as possible from coming in.
	Sometimes Governments have to be inventive. This Bill relies on some of the traditional routes, such as making appeals harder, enforcement more difficult and life more miserable for people living in this country who should not be here. However, it is also inventive, because it covers social services and health and tells landlords to become immigration officers. This Bill will turn race relations into a nightmare, bringing suspicion based on ethnicity into our social services and the housing market.
	Like most right-wing parties, the Tories’ pre-conceived idea about immigration is that it is a bad thing that has to be dealt with and managed. To them it is a burden. Right-wing Conservatives such as those in this Government
	want to get the numbers down. That has been the case throughout history. Conservatives would probably have tried to stop the Normans and the Vikings coming here on their boats in the 9th and 10th centuries. Theirs is a world view of barriers and of preventing people from coming here.
	We live in a globalised, interconnected world in which the transfer and movement of people have never been greater. We are standing in London, for goodness’ sake! This is one of the greatest cities, if not the greatest city, in the world. One third of the people who live and work in London come from outwith the United Kingdom. It is they who built this magnificent city.
	We should listen to what the Mayor of London has to say about these issues. He wrote a fantastic article in The Daily Telegraph the other day—I wish the Conservatives would read it—under the headline, “It’s mad to blame our housing crisis on ‘blooming foreigners’”. I would not put it that way, but the Mayor of London is spot on. He recognises the value of and contribution made by high-end and low-end migrants to London. I recommend that my many Conservative friends in the House take a look at what the London Mayor has to say about this issue, because they will get some sense from him, unlike the hon. Member for Peterborough.
	Yes, this country has changed. My country, Scotland, is changing, too. We do not vote Conservative. We approach these issues differently. Debates such as this show that we are pulling apart politically. We would not have such a debate in Scotland; we would not discuss such themes. We are drifting apart as a political culture.
	This place is living in the early days of UKIP UK. That is where we are in this country. It started a little while ago, but it really came through with UKIP’s success in the local elections. That changed everything. We now live in UKIP UK. The party does not have one member in this House, but it is pulling all the Conservative party’s strings and dominating political debate. Everything is predicated on UKIP and Nigel Farage.
	UKIP’s victory was closely followed by the hate vans and the ridiculous texts trying to get people to go home. I secured a debate on the hate vans last week. Perhaps I should get a bit of credit for getting rid of the appalling things. It took ages for the Minister to respond to me about them, but a week after the debate, we have got rid of the hate vans. That is a result.
	Even this Conservative Government realise how ridiculous it was to drag a billboard around the streets of London, ranting at people to go home, with a telephone number and a text number. That is what they were reduced to. It could not get more ridiculous. What would have been next? The Minister was one of the few people in the Home Office who was prepared to defend the hate vans. He was in the studios all last week saying that, with a bit of refinement around the edges, they might be okay. He was prepared to put son-of-hate-vans on the streets. Thank goodness that has been ruled out by the Home Secretary. Let us be sure that it does not happen.
	Are the Opposition opposing the Bill? I do not know. They do not like aspects of it, but they are compromised. If they are to win the next election, they have to win votes in the south. That brings us back to UKIP UK. They are aware that immigration is a hot issue in seats
	that they have to win, so they are having to be very careful about what they say. The Conservatives are right to point the finger at them because they are not doing a thing, but they should not let the Conservatives bully them. The Conservatives are saying that the seven to nine years of high immigration when Labour was in government were a waste. One of the best things that Labour did was to get people into this country. It built cities such as London and rejuvenated cities such as Manchester and Leeds. Labour Members should not let the Conservatives bully them into thinking that they did the wrong thing on immigration.

Pamela Nash: I would appreciate some clarity on the SNP’s position. I presume that the UK Government will need help from the Scottish Government on the landlord checks and on the NHS proposals, as those areas are largely devolved. What is the SNP line on that?

Pete Wishart: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me to talk about Scotland. There are proposals that relate to devolved services that we are in control of. We do not like them—we do not like them at all. We are in charge of the health service in Scotland. We would need to be convinced that these measures were in the best interests of Scotland before we would go through with them. Scotland is a different country. The hon. Lady knows that, and I think she would agree that we would not do these things.

Julian Huppert: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his debate last week. I agree with him on that issue. I also share his concerns about landlords. Is he as pleased as I am that there will be only one pilot in one location and that the policy will not be rolled out without a vote? Does he take some comfort from that, even though he might not be totally reassured?

Pete Wishart: I take a little comfort from that, but not a great deal. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is thinking, but I am sure that he will not vote for this nonsense tonight. I know what he has said. I can see all the Liberals sitting there thinking, “Uh-uh! This is not a liberal Bill.” It is one of the most illiberal Bills that we have seen from this Government. It will be an absolute disgrace if even one Liberal goes through the Aye Lobby tonight. When I sat on the Opposition Benches with them, I heard them rant against new Labour immigration Bills. This Bill is 10 times worse than anything new Labour concocted.
	Scotland has had the “go home” project. The UK Border Agency office in Glasgow was telling people to go home before they had even sat down. Now that we have got rid of the appalling hate vans, I want the Minister to guarantee that we will not have “go home” messages at UKBA offices. We do not want that in Scotland. We do not have UKIP in Scotland. Nigel Farage had to get a police escort out of Edinburgh. We hate UKIP to the bottom of our ballot boxes. It has not secured one deposit in Scotland. We do not want to take part in the appalling race to the bottom that the Conservatives are engaged in with UKIP—a race to the bottom that they can never win. They will never out-UKIP UKIP. It is the master of right-wing gimmickry. If the Conservatives enter a race with UKIP, they will only get beaten. I think that the Minister knows that.
	This matter is important for Scotland. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) is right about that. We have our own demographic issues and population requirements. I will tell Members the difference between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. When the Scottish Government received the latest population figures, they put out a press release welcoming the rise in the Scottish population. Could you ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, imagine a UK Government welcoming a rise in population? That is what distinguishes us as a Government from them—we welcome the contribution of immigration. We have our own population requirements, but we are stuck and burdened with a set of immigration policies that are almost the exact opposite of what we require. That is why we must wrest control of our own immigration requirements.
	Our population has gone up and that is good, but there are concerns that it might still fall. Even 10 years ago, we were worried that our population might fall below the 5 million mark. Thankfully, that did not happen. The health provisions will cut across our responsibility for devolved services, and we will have to look at them carefully before we do anything.
	There is one thing I want to say about immigration, because we do not like any of this stuff—it is just rubbish. The UK Government’s immigration policy is having an impact on Scotland’s great universities. We have three universities in the top 200 universities in the world. We have fantastic world-class universities and this Government are hurting them. Just stop it. We want to ensure that we get the best possible students to our universities. All this rubbish that the Government are proposing puts more and more people off. We have to compete with other English-speaking nations around the world to ensure that our universities stay world class. We just wish the UK Government would get out.
	This issue is simple. Let us admit that Government Members seem to be going in one direction—the emerging UKIP UK has its own set of values, culture and political direction—and in Scotland we are going another way. We do not like this stuff. We do not vote Conservative and we hate UKIP, so we are not going to go in that direction. Here is a novel solution: why do they not do their own thing and we do our own thing? It is called independence and it works for most countries. Next year, thank goodness, we will achieve it.

Andrew Selous: It is important that we adopt a moderate tone, as immigration is an issue that can all too easily inflame passions. I agree strongly with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). If we do not debate the difficult issues on immigration in this House, we cede the territory to nasty extremist groups and we must never do that. We must be prepared, albeit with our different points of view, to debate and discuss these issues in this House in a measured and reasonable manner, and that is what I hope to do.
	If we look back over the 20th century, we see that for much of that time the numbers migrating into and emigrating from the United Kingdom were roughly in balance. From the 1960s to the early 1990s, the number of emigrants was actually often greater than the number of immigrants—a net population decline. What has happened in the past two decades? Immigration has
	exceeded emigration by more than 100,000 every year since 1998—a significant historical departure from the 20th century and many periods before then. It is important for us to recognise that.
	Turning to the Bill, I am in complete agreement with the need to speed up the removal of illegal immigrants who have absolutely no further basis to stay in the United Kingdom. That is important, both for the credibility of the immigration system and for the people themselves. It is no life at all to live in a type of limbo not knowing one’s status, or, if one does know one’s status, carrying on being in the United Kingdom when one cannot really make a life or plan for the future. If someone has no basis to stay in this country, it is right for them to return voluntarily to their home country or, if necessary, be forcibly deported by the Government. I know that the Government will take greater steps in this area: frankly, the delays are often too long. As the Home Secretary said in her opening speech, we need swift enforcement. That is very important.
	I agree with the point made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), who mentioned the original predictions about immigration from the A8 European Union countries—13,000 was the original figure, I think, but the reality was many hundreds of thousands, and people lost confidence in the Government’s ability to predict immigration numbers. I welcome what the Home Secretary said about dealing with the pull factors regarding Romanian and Bulgarian immigration, which will become an issue from the start of next year.
	One measure in the Bill will deal with people accessing the national health service when they have no right to do so. Many of my constituents come to me and say, “We have a national health service, not a world health service.” Last January, the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Local Medical Committee—the group that represents GPs in my area—wrote to the Immigration Minister. I will quote briefly from that letter to show the type of issues they were begging the Minister to deal with, and to which he has now provided an answer.
	“One very typical recent case is where a local Pakistani-born resident, registered with a Luton GP, had his parents, visiting on a six months visitor’s visa, staying with him. Both parents have a number of on-going chronic illnesses that include diabetes and coronary heart disease; they had arrived in the country with far too few tablets to cover the duration of their stay. Because they have moved in with their son, who was well known to the GP concerned, the GP not only felt that she had an ethical duty to provide further care and medication for the parents, but she knew that the doctor/patient relationship with the son would be destroyed if she refused. Another local GP has thousands of patients on his list who entertain friends and relatives from Pakistan, India and other…countries and who come to England for the sole purpose of accessing free health care.”
	That comes not from me but from the leader of local GPs in my area, who are asking the Government to take action on this issue. I am glad that the Minister and the Government have responded to that concern; they were right to do so.
	Under the previous Government, one of my constituents who was unemployed and looking for work sent me a very angry e-mail. She was angry because during her job search she had come across an advertisement for a picker-packer job on the minimum wage. There was a condition, however, because she—or any applicant—had to speak Polish. At the time I raised the issue in the
	House with the then Solicitor-General, the former Member for Redcar, and various actions were taken. People agreed that such advertisements were not right, and I would have liked clear action to have been taken to state that such actions were illegal. I think such a condition was absolutely wrong for a minimum wage job—a picker-packer—when there was no requirement to deal with Poland. How can our constituents find work fairly if they have to compete with such issues?
	Two years ago, the UK Border Agency mounted a raid on a major factory in my constituency. It found a number of illegal immigrants and that employer was dealt with. Again, our constituents have to deal with such issues daily. They are competing for jobs in the labour market against people who either have no right to be here, or, in some cases, their employers make an utterly unreasonable—and frankly disgraceful—requirement that they should speak a foreign language to do a minimum wage job.
	This is about being fair to British jobseekers of all races. That is important as we are all concerned to ensure that our constituents have a fair chance of getting into the labour market.
	I support the measures in the Bill on proper checks to ensure that illegal immigrants—people who have no basis of stay in this country—cannot carry on living here. That includes checks involving landlords, banks, the NHS, which I have mentioned, and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Most of my constituents would say that the measures are right and express incredulity that they have not been taken before, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) said in an intervention on the Home Secretary.
	I give the Bill a strong welcome. Many of my constituents raise immigration issues regularly. They want them debated in the House of Commons. They want their views and concerns to be expressed. I believe that the Bill goes some way to restoring faith and credibility in our immigration system, which is very welcome.

Pamela Nash: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Second Reading. The debate has been, and will continue to be, wide ranging, but I shall restrict my comments to three specific matters, the first of which is the potential unintended consequences of the immigration health charge.
	Clauses 33 and 34 introduce the immigration health charge, but offer no clarity on the administration or policing of it. That leaves the presumption and fear that checks will be in place before people access primary care, even if there are no measures to that effect in the Bill. I am concerned that that will create serious risks to public health, including an increase in HIV infection. That is not only my view, but the view of many charities and organisations working in the field that have contacted me, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS. They have serious concerns.
	Currently, 100,000 people living in this country have HIV, a quarter of whom are undiagnosed. Half of new infections are passed by people who are undiagnosed. Evidence shows that the migrant communities are less likely to go to sexual health or specialist clinics to be
	tested because of the increased stigma for them and their communities. They are much more likely to go to a general practitioner because it is not as obvious that they are attending to be tested—the stigma is not related to GPs.
	My fear is that any sort of barrier erected between migrant communities and GPs and primary care access will be another contribution to the shameful increase in HIV infection in this country in recent years. GPs carrying out any sort of immigration check sends out the wrong message entirely. I urge the Government to listen to the experts. I have a lot of information and letters on the subject to show that the measures could have a grave effect on tackling infection numbers and late diagnoses in migrant communities in the UK.

Mark Harper: To reassure the hon. Lady before she continues, nothing in the Bill refers to GPs. Even the proposals my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has set out today make it clear that provision for public health conditions such as HIV will remain free for everybody, because that is the right thing for public health purposes, as she has set out.

Pamela Nash: I appreciate the Minister’s intervention, but the fact is that there is no clarity in the Bill—it leaves that fear for communities seeking primary care. If they believe they will be kicked out of the country for going to the doctor, they might not go and therefore might not be tested.
	Public health experts agree that increasing the offer of HIV testing to a wide range of facilities is key to tackling the UK epidemic in all communities. In addition, the purpose of primary care is to assess the broadest range of health needs and identify how best to meet them. Anything that delays or prevents anyone with an infectious disease from seeking medical advice denies them the opportunity to be diagnosed and increases the chance of them passing on the infection to someone else. Someone on HIV treatment is 96% less likely to transmit it to others. Therefore, the Bill clearly risks unlimited and unintended consequences to UK public health.
	The Bill may increase the risk that we will fail to tackle HIV in our communities, and it may also be costly. According to the Department of Health’s review of overseas visitors charging policy, referred to in the explanatory notes, a comparison of the administration costs of the current system with the amount actually recovered showed that it barely broke even. The Home Secretary failed to address that point, and I hope that the Minister will do so in his closing remarks. The new system may not be cheaper and we may fail to reclaim any money.
	According to the review, in order to recoup the money and achieve the Government’s aims, the NHS structure would need to be radically changed. It said:
	“Only a fundamentally different system and supporting processes would enable significant new revenue to be realised.”
	I would be grateful if the Minister provided more clarity about the administration of the proposals and the collection of the money from those who have entered the country.
	I am also concerned about the effect that the proposals will have on reciprocal arrangements with other countries, which has not really been mentioned today. The Bill refers to our EEA partners, but we have arrangements with 27 countries that are not in the EEA, including
	Australia and New Zealand. Many of our students go backpacking in those countries or to work on short-term visas, and they access health care free of charge, like the people who come here from those countries. Can the Minister clarify how the Bill will affect reciprocal arrangements? Has he had discussions with representatives of those countries? Will we have new reciprocal agreements, or will they not be affected?
	The final area of concern is the devolved aspects of the Bill, which I mentioned in an intervention earlier. I am surprised by how vague this issue is in the Bill. There is no detail on how charges for devolved public services will be made, or on how landlord checks will work in the devolved nations.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady is probably aware—and if not, she is now—that there was no consultation whatever with the Scottish Government in the lead-up to the publication of this Bill.

Pamela Nash: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information.

Mark Harper: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Lady again, but the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has—inadvertently, I am sure—misled the House. What he says is simply not true. I wrote to several Ministers in the Scottish Government, and my officials liaised with their officials over the summer, before the publication of the Bill.

Pamela Nash: I thank the Minister for that intervention. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was extremely animated and angry earlier—understandably so—about some of the aspects of the Bill, but when I asked about the SNP’s position, he simply replied that he remained to be convinced, instead of saying that it opposed it. I ask the Minister to provide some clarity about the discussions and agreements reached with the Scottish Government and the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. What impact assessment has been conducted on the cross-border issues that the Bill could bring about?

John Hemming: Obviously there are countries outside the EEA with which we do not have reciprocal arrangements. On a point of principle, is the hon. Lady of the view that if someone visits from those countries we should provide them with free health care—or perhaps only in Scotland?

Pamela Nash: I would always advocate that the NHS should be free at the point of need—

John Hemming: Is the hon. Lady saying that the NHS should be free to people from around the world, so that they can visit here and have free health care, regardless of whether they make any contribution towards it?

Pamela Nash: As I said, I am disappointed at the lack of clarity on the details, so I do not feel able to say if I am—

John Hemming: rose—

Pamela Nash: Sorry, does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene?

John Hemming: I am asking the hon. Lady for her view.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Mr Hemming, sit down. This is not a personal discussion between you and Pamela Nash of the points you might want to make later. May we have a bit of order? Pamela Nash, you have the Floor. If you give way to John Hemming, could you indicate accordingly, so that I can call him?

Pamela Nash: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not let anyone intervene again.
	I strongly believe in an NHS free at the point of need. Arrangements are in place for people to pay, when that is required, but we have had no clarity about how the provisions will be policed or expanded. I agree that we need an immigration policy that protects our constituents from increasing global financial pressures, but we do not want them coming up against unintended consequences as a result of measures in the Bill, on which there has been a lack of consultation. I worry about the risk to public and private health. Moreover, this debate has thrown up areas of contention in the referendum debate and problems with having different arrangements in Scotland and England. If the Bill removes long-held reciprocal agreements with countries that we are friends with and to which our constituents wish to travel, I would be very concerned. Finally, I am concerned that the Bill will cost constituents more than it benefits them.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to welcome the Bill.
	Immigration remains among the issues that most concern my constituents; that was the case in the run-up to the last general election, and it is still the issue most raised on the doorstep. Not totally surprisingly, perhaps, my constituency does not experience huge immigration—according to the last statistics I saw, I had two of the five most ethnically English towns in the country—but there remains a fear of immigration. What people see, perhaps in neighbouring towns, causes them concern, perhaps over and above the real extent of the problem. Nevertheless, they are concerned—and they express their concerns regularly—that too many people are coming here illegally and not being sent back home. They are especially worried that serious criminals who complete their prison sentences are not being deported, and they are worried that our public services and housing cannot cope with the population increase.
	It is right that the Government address those issues and try to restore confidence in the system; we all want an immigration system that people can have faith in. We want to get this right so that “asylum” can cease to be a dirty word and we can be proud to take people who are in desperate need. I am not sure that most of my constituents think that way now. Rather, they are concerned that the system is being abused and that everyone who arrives here has no reason to be here.
	While welcoming most of the Bill, I want to focus on some of its key areas. From my relatively limited immigration casework, I know that this can be a byzantine system and sometimes produces bizarre results. Reading some of the verdicts, I find it hard to work out what the facts of the case are or how the verdict bears much relation to those facts.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the byzantine complexity and the errors in decision making. Does he agree that the Government’s priority should be to ensure that decisions are made correctly?

Nigel Mills: That should be a priority for every Department. I serve on the Work and Pensions Committee. Sadly, the DWP’s administration processes too often come up with the wrong decisions, but the problem is often fixed by a mandatory reconsideration process within the Department.
	It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how the review process would work. I think it is the right idea, however, because we do not want to be troubling the courts and tribunals with mistakes in the system. If they can be corrected within the Department, that must be a more cost-effective, fairer and quicker system for all involved. We need to know that the person doing the reconsideration is independent, and not just defaulting to the previous decision—because he knows the guy who took it and so it must have been right. We all want a system that gives clear, quick, fair and accurate decisions first time around, avoiding a labyrinthine process that subjects people to an awful wait while trying to establish their status, which makes them miserable and gets them stuck in the system for longer than necessary.
	That is a genuine concern for my constituents: why is the system still so slow? Let us get it right first time. If the person has no right to be here, let them be told that so that we do not have to go through multiple different appeals down different routes. The proposal that those with no right to be here no longer need a separate removal notice has to be right.
	I also agree about article 8. We need to get the balance right between the interests of the public in this country and the interests of the person making the claim. I am not sure our courts have been interpreting that correctly. We have a right to be protected from serious criminals. I speak as someone who generally favours deregulation and does not favour imposing new burdens on people, so it is with some caution that I welcome the proposals to ask landlords to start checking the immigration status of their prospective tenants. I have an interest, as I rent out a house in Nottingham where Iused to live. I use an agent, so I am pretty certain I will be safe from these rules as long as the agent is competent.
	There is a real public interest in trying to make sure that it is harder for illegal immigrants to avoid the system and stay here without a right to do so. One of the ways we can do that is to ask landlords to make sure that the person they are renting out to has a right to be here. In my constituency, most letting agents go through some hugely extensive and complicated processes, and take a lot of money off tenants, to check their credit history, references from previous landlords and all manner
	of things. I am not sure that it is that much of an extra burden to ask them to check a person’s status as well. Clearly there are some whose position is so complicated that it will not be easy for a landlord or agent to come to a clear understanding. That is why we need a service from the Home Office that gives a clear and quick answer and says, “Yes, you can rent to this person. No, you can’t rent to that person.”
	Having worked with clearance mechanisms in my previous life, I know that getting that to be quick and accurate will not be straightforward, but it has to be the right thing to do. We need a system that is clear enough so that not every landlord seeks a clearance every time to be 100 per cent. safe. We need a clearance system that works and is used only where there is some doubt and not where there is clearly an easy situation to determine.
	Most of us would think that it is ridiculous that someone who has no right to be here can get a UK driving licence or a UK bank account. That should never have been the case and it is right to stop that so that someone cannot build up a life here that they are not entitled to have, because that can make it harder for us to deport them.
	I have no need to detain the House at great length. I welcome the Bill, which represents a real step forward. I am sure my constituents will welcome it, although there are things that sadly we cannot do which they would have liked to see in it. There is a great deal of concern about what will happen next year when restrictions on Romania and Bulgaria are lifted. We need to understand what can be done to make sure we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. But this is a welcome Bill, and I look forward to it making a speedy passage through Parliament.

David Lammy: I am very grateful to make a contribution to this debate and of course my remarks are informed by the experience of being the son of immigrants; my father arrived in this country in the 1950s, but is no longer alive. The remarkable greatness of Britain that allows me to be here representing my seat in a sense conveys the importance of the debate; it is what is great about this country. In discussing immigration, migration and, indeed, emigration, we balance and underline that greatness, which gives us the diversity that we all cherish.
	I am also informed by two particular experiences over the past few years. One was an experience that many hon. Members will share, particularly those representing so called “safe seats” or those who have ministerial office in government. During general elections, we end up out of our constituencies, travelling around the country, holding balloons in shopping centres and persuading people to vote for our parties. I found myself in North West Leicestershire with our candidate Ross, campaigning in Coalville. We were greeted—well, not greeted; many people tried to avoid us—and I got stuck in a conversation with a young man called Scott. He supported Leicester City; I support Spurs. We had a long conversation about this and then I plucked up the courage, not to ask him to marry me, but to ask him who he was going to vote for. At that point, I was set back because he told me he was going to vote for the British National party. I said, “What do you mean? Why are you going to vote
	for the BNP?” He described himself as a brickie, and he told me that eastern Europeans—“the Poles”, as he called them—had come to that part of the country and undercut his wages. He said they were preventing him from being employed. He pointed to his four-year-old son and said, “I’ve got to feed this boy. That’s why I’m voting for the BNP.” That is a difficult argument to counter, just as it was for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who so badly fumbled it at the last general election, and for all hon. Members across the House.
	Another factor was the riots. People talk about them starting in Tottenham, but they spread to very different areas. I have strong memories of members of the English Defence League on the streets of Enfield Town, just two miles away, chanting “England, England, England” and handing out leaflets saying that we had to do something about the African gangs. That is the context of this debate, and these subjects have to be handled very sensitively indeed.
	Why was that young man in Coalville, Scott, so concerned about immigration because his wages were being undercut and he often could not get a job? Was it not the job of the Government properly to enforce the minimum wage? Was it not the job of the Government to be tough on unscrupulous employers? In London at the moment, we have a crisis involving school places, and people are voicing their concerns about the situation. Surely it should have been the job of successive Governments to deal with that. People complain about housing and about the benefits bill, but successive Governments have failed to build sufficient housing in this country. There is concern out there, but that concern should fall right back on us here. Successive Governments have failed to deal with the issues that stoke those concerns.
	Before I came to this place, I had the privilege of taking a law degree at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, and I then made it to Harvard law school. I learned a lot about our constitution and about the constitution that was forged in the United States of America. In both those places, it is important to remember that the foundation of our democracy was the Magna Carta; I am not just quoting this for the sake of it. It states:
	“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled. Nor will we proceed with force against him except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”
	Why then, in 2013, are we returning to the subject of appeals and denying civilised human beings the right of appeal? Why do we tell people that it is okay for them to go back to Afghanistan? Why, after the debate we had on Syria, are we telling people that it is okay for them to go back and launch their appeals from there? Why, given the debates that we have on international development, do we expect people to go back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and launch their appeals from there? Just a few months ago, we were having a debate in this place on the residence test and the changes to judicial review. Those changes will mean that far fewer people will be able to exercise their rights.
	The sense that we are choking our democracy is coming from a number of different directions; it is not exclusive to this debate. It places a stain on all that we have achieved in this place, and all that we expect our
	young people to understand about our democracy, if we are not honest about why our services are feeling the pressure. Our Prime Minister says that he wants to see an end to the something-for-nothing culture, but if we are not honest about what fosters that, we give the wrong impression.
	Let me go back to the period when my father arrived in this country, the 1950s. It was a period of austerity, with the country just coming out of rationing, a period in which we celebrated the coronation of our current Queen and a period of crisis, such as the Suez crisis, but it was also a period during which it was typical and usual to have on landlords’ doors in this country, “No Irish, no blacks, no dogs.” We forget that at our peril. That is why I will absolutely not vote for a Bill that encourages landlords to go down that road again and that does not have the necessary understanding, restrictions and knowledge of our history. Believe me, anyone in this House who knows anything about the Irish community will know that “No Irish need apply” has been a consistent phrase in our country’s history, and we are now going back to a place where we hand our landlords the power to make such decisions without the necessary experience to determine the validity of a stamp in a passport.

Mel Stride: rose—

David Lammy: I will not give way.
	Many people in this country from poor and working-class backgrounds do not have a passport. They have not applied for one. They do not go off to France or southern Italy on holiday every summer, or save up to go to India or the Caribbean. They are lucky if they get to Skegness at best. They have no passport and now they will be forced to buy one because landlords cannot always determine where somebody is from and will want to be sure. Those people without passports will be passed over and others will get preferential treatment.
	My father would be rolling in his grave and I can tell Members who would be smiling: Peter Rachman, that famous landlord in Notting Hill who caused so much damage to so many people. It is an absolute shame that we are going down this road.
	Despite all the Government’s discussions of the importance of our global economy, anyone who believed in the importance of trade and our export market would do nothing to damage the higher education sector, which brings in £14 billion from the students who come to this country. Every vice-chancellor would say that this Government have got things wrong in their treatment of students and higher education, just as 82% of landlords are asking, “Please do not give us this power. We do not want the power, we are not policemen and we do not want to do this. The Government should do this.” What is the Government’s record? What about the UKBA? How effective is it as an agency? How does it stack up on the list of effectiveness? It is one of the most appalling agencies we have ever seen in this country and that is why the Government have had to tinker with it, change it, get rid of it and take it back into the Home Office.
	Why, when 70,000 appeals are being made, 50% of which succeed, would the Government deny people the right to appeal? Because of the race to the bottom, because of the UK Independence party and because we have failed to have the honest discussion with the British public about what we have failed to invest in. Yes, the
	last election was marked by this issue, but in 2005 I had to canvass across the country while looking at the posters with that scribbled writing, “It’s okay to talk about immigration—it’s not racism.” I remember those Conservative party posters. We will have that debate again and I hope that the British people will recognise the nastiness at the core of the discussion. In the end, we do down our country when we walk down that road.

Simon Hughes: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). He knows that I have great respect for him and his huge experience. He and I, like every other Member of Parliament for Greater London, come to this debate representing a huge number of people from all over the world. That is also reflected in the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather).
	I should declare an interest, which can be found in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My brother and I inherited from our late mum, who died a couple of years ago, a house that we rent to non-Brits, as it happens, through a letting agency. I will come back to the question of lettings later.
	I come to this debate from two perspectives. First, I regularly do a huge amount of immigration and asylum work, which is consistently about 40% of the work in my constituency. The overwhelming experience of that casework, which is frequently acute, is that far too often the wrong decision is made at the beginning. Of course, some people abuse the system, but many do not, and come here perfectly properly. I am talking not about asylum seekers but about immigrants who come here legally but may overstay and so on. When they go to officials to put their case, we often have an enormous struggle to try to deal with that. The Minister, to whom I pay tribute for his courtesy in always dealing with matters I bring to him, as did his predecessor—and whom I rarely trouble, because I seek to deal with his officials—knows that in the end many colleagues become hugely frustrated because the most deserving cases imaginable are not understood or dealt with properly in the system.
	The overwhelming concern—I have checked with the person who leads in my constituency office on immigration and asylum work—is not to introduce lots of new legislation but to provide a system that works well by making administrative improvements. That has always been the case, but sadly there is still a huge backlog of cases both in immigration and asylum, and a huge number of cases that go to appeal.
	There are some really good people working in what was the UK Border Agency and is now part of the Home Office again. I pay tribute to them, and I am grateful for their courtesy, but there are some poor people who do not understand immediacy and the way in which things should be dealt with. There are some very good people in our outposts around the world who deal with cases, but as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee, said, it is illogical to ask the same person to review a decision that they have made and expect them to think that it is the wrong decision only a few weeks later.
	Secondly, we must proceed carefully when we seek to legislate yet again on immigration and asylum. When I served in opposition, for too long I saw Governments introduce immigration Bills, few of which sorted out problems to the extent that people could say that they were a great success. However, there are real issues, and our constituents and the country are concerned. Of course, people are fair-minded, I hope, and would always realise that we are a country of immigrants—they are from around the UK, from outside the UK and Europe, and from all over the world—and that in London and many cities, and most of the UK, immigration has enriched our culture hugely. None the less it needs to be controlled, and there has to be a limit. We also need to make sure that those who are here illegally do not remain here illegally.
	One of the things that my party tried to do at the last election was put this issue on the agenda. It was difficult, because the issue of addressing illegal migration has over the years been something that the public have found hard to come to terms with. President Obama has sought to do so in the United States in a brave way with Churches and faith groups across the parties, and in this country the issue has not gone away.
	We need a firm but fair immigration system, and we need firm processes for policing it. I also believe that, because we are a country of islands, we should not opt into the Schengen agreement, and that we should have our own border controls. It is not a view that all the colleagues in my party take, but it is an advantage in managing migration to deploy that tactic. Irrespective of other European controls we should have our own. I have always taken the view that we should check people out as well as check people in, and that when we admit other countries to the EU we should have gradual admission. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) made the wrong decision to allow mass admission in one go from the eastern European countries. In the end, everyone accepts that that was the wrong decision. Again, I think I was in a minority in my party at the time in arguing that the process should be phased.
	We should be clear that the Bill does not deal with asylum. Asylum cases will, I hope, always be dealt with compassionately. We must be seen to be a country that is always willing to receive people who come to us fleeing from persecution because of their politics, faith, gender, sexuality or whatever else it might be. I hope the Minister will say amen to that.
	I hope, too, that we will always be positive that any changes that we make have been tried and tested and will not have disproportionate or unfair outcomes. That is why I am troubled that yet again we are dealing with a Bill that has not had pre-legislative scrutiny, that it was not preceded by a Green Paper or a White Paper and that it has not been the subject of full consultation. This is bad legislative process and there is no need for it. There is no immediacy that means that we have to get the Bill on to the statute book in two minutes. We must do better. We had the same problem with the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. This Government, whom I support, have said that we will do these things better. Well, we must do them better consistently. Whatever view we take of the Bill, there is no disadvantage in pre-legislative scrutiny and going through the proper processes to
	make sure that unintended consequences are avoided. I regret that that has not been done and as a result I may not be able to support the timetable motion. We need much more time to examine the Bill and I am sure the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, will want to look at it too.
	I have three other quick points. Colleagues on the Opposition Benches—they include the right hon. Member for Leicester East, whose speech I entirely agree with, and others—have made the point that we have not looked at the Bill in the context of the changes that we are making to legal aid and judicial review. They are all interrelated issues. I have outstanding promises from Ministers on the Front Bench that they would review previous changes. If we reduce the chances of people going to court to challenge decisions, then reduce the chance of an appeal at all and then insist that people go back to countries from which it may be very difficult for them to appeal, we are denying the right of appeal altogether. We must be extremely careful about that, but we need simpler appeal systems. I welcome the fact that that is on the agenda of the Bill. We have too many different processes and they need to be brought together, but they must be simplified in a way that makes them both workable and understandable.
	We must make sure that we do not breach international conventions, especially in relation to children. I am not satisfied that the Bill does that, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights has not been satisfied in relation to other legislation. We have obligations nationally and internationally that we must fulfil. The Government have done well. Our Government ended the detention of children for immigration purposes, which I welcome. My hon. Friend the Minister was party to that, as were other Ministers, and we must not now undo the good work that we have done in relation to children.
	On the parts of the Bill that deal with marriage and civil partnerships, nobody wants to condone sham marriages and sham civil partnerships. We must have robust processes for dealing with that, and in principle those changes are welcome. I have no objection to people from outside this country being required to pay for public services. It seems to me that that is the proper principle, and therefore the proposal that the national health service has a charge is one of principle. I support the principle. The question is whether it is practical and how it is going to be implemented. It also seems proper to have a bank account control mechanism that means that people who are legally not meant to be here cannot process their moneys around and be supported in doing so. The same principle, for me, applies to driving licences. I have severe problems, however, believing that the residential tenancy plans will work. I know that that is a pilot scheme and that it will be trialled only, but it will be very difficult for honourable, perfectly respectable landlords to carry out that process properly, and I would prefer that that part of the Bill were not included.
	I indicated earlier to the Home Secretary that there are sufficient good things in the Bill to make it worth taking on to Committee stage and looking at carefully, but I hope the Government do not try to push us to rush things. I hope they will be responsive to constructive criticisms from those of us who deal with this sort of work in huge volume every day of our lives. I hope that at the end we can get the message out that we should have tough immigration policies, we should be firm but
	fair, but we must make sure that we have a better system that works behind those policies, and we should be clear that another set of legislative changes will not solve all the problems that are a legacy of poor, incompetent Home Office government over many, many years.

Diane Abbott: I am glad to be able to speak about the Bill. I have taken an interest in immigration policy for very many years, first as an administrative trainee in the Home Office, and secondly as somebody who year on year is in the top 10 of MPs processing immigration casework. I have also, of course, taken an interest because I represent a constituency with very many immigrants from all over the world, and, finally, because I am the child of immigrants. I say from my knowledge and experience of the immigration system that it is bedevilled by poor administration and rushed and incoherent legislation, motivated by short-term political advantage—and I do not except the Labour party from that. I am afraid that this Bill is more of the same.
	I say right at the beginning that there are many details in the Bill that I agree with—which is not surprising, because some of it merely puts into legislation matters that were regulations under the Labour Administration—but I deplore the rhetoric and I deplore the political direction of travel. I remind the House that immigration as an issue has been freighted with emotion since the days of Enoch Powell, and since those days immigration has been a synonym for black, Asian and foreign-looking people—for “the other”. Any Member of the House who pretends that immigrant, immigration and anti-immigrant rhetoric does not have that underlying narrative in British politics is being naive.
	If people do not believe me, I urge them to read the report of the royal commission on alien immigration in 1903 and the subsequent Aliens Act 1905, which deal with exactly the ideas that those on the Government Front Bench are trying to push forward today. What people say about east European migrants today is what was said about east African migrants in the ’60s, what was said about west Indian migrants, what was said about Jewish migrants to the east end after the first world war, and what was said about Irish migrants in the 19th century: driving down wages; living in terrible housing conditions; assaulting our women. It is always the same narrative, which should be a clue to the House that it is always the same issue.
	I remind Government Members who think that they can get away with all this anti-immigrant rhetoric and not pay an electoral price that the Republicans in the United States thought that. They went to town with anti- Hispanic, illegal migrant rhetoric; they thought that anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric was a huge vote winner. But at the election they found that perfectly legal migrants ran, not walked, away from Republicans. Not just Hispanic migrants but Chinese, Japanese, Indian migrants—every migrant community—voted in unprecedented numbers for the Democrats, in what was a difficult election for them in many ways, because when people of immigrant descent hear that anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric they think, “Actually, they are talking about me, my dad, my mum, my auntie, the people on the landing.” Government Members should not think that they can continue down this anti-illegal immigrant path and not pay a price with
	the votes of the children and grandchildren of migrants. The danger with the Bill is not just that it will create the hostile environment for illegal immigrants that the Home Secretary was boasting of, but that it will tend to create a hostile environment for all of us of immigrant descent and our children.
	I know as much about the UK Border Agency and abuse of the system as anyone. I worked in the Home Office and I knew about Croydon. People say that the Government inherited a shambolic immigration department from the Labour party, but as long as I have known the immigration department it has been dysfunctional and shambolic, and there are systemic reasons for that. It was always seen as an outpost of the Home Office in Whitehall and no one wanted to work there, so it was allowed to remain in a welter of administrative confusion. I bow to no one in my knowledge and my disapproval of the chaos, unfairness, inefficiency and poor administration of the immigration department. I also know—this has not been mentioned—of the abuses practised on my constituents by so-called immigration advisers. People talk about abuses of the system, but they are often triggered not by people who are simply looking for a better life for their family but by a class of so-called immigration advisers who systematically rip them off. My constituents come to me years later and I have to try to pick up the pieces of a case that was mishandled right from the beginning by people motivated only by profit.
	I agree with what my long-standing friend and colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), said about administrative problems, and I give him every credit for his work on the matter over the years. I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) said about people who are left in limbo, even though they are here legally, because the UKBA has not sent them their paperwork. There are systemic problems with the UKBA, but that does not justify trying to turn doctors and landlords into immigration officers on wheels. We need to deal with what is wrong with the administration before we ask untrained people to pursue matters that the Government and a state agency should deal with.
	I want to say a word about what people hear on the doorstep, which keeps coming up in this debate. I hear about that from Government Members, and I am afraid that I hear about it from some hon. Friends. First, let us kill the myth that Labour had an open-door policy on migration. I have an office with filing cabinets stacked full of files about the thousands of cases that I dealt with year on year under a Labour Government. There was the issue of the miscalculation of the number of people coming from the eastern European accession countries—no one denies that—but if there was an open door, why did so many of my constituents have to wait years and years, divided from their family, to bring their children in? There was no open door. Far from apologising, the Labour party should make that point more clearly and more often.
	What do we hear on the doorstep? I can believe that Members hear people complaining about immigrants. I have the children of West Indians complaining to me about eastern European migrants. However, in an economic downturn people always complain about the other, and want to blame the other for their economic circumstances.
	Of course we as politicians should deal with the underlying issues when people complain, whether about a lack of housing or job insecurity, but we must not allow public policy to be driven by people who are frightened of the changes they see around them, of economic insecurity and of the fact that the so-called upturn is not helping their living standards. We are now in danger of passing yet another ill thought-out Bill to go on the pile that has been heaped up since the 1960s.
	Let us not forget that much of what we hear on the doorstep about immigration is simply not based on fact. It may be easy to say to people, “Oh, yes, you’re so right, we’re going to have fewer of them; we’re going to do this; we’re going to do that,” but politicians should deal with the facts first rather than pander all the time to urban myth, which leads to a downward spiral of rhetoric.
	Turning to the content of the Bill, other Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), have dealt with the issue of landlords. Even landlords’ organisations are against the Bill. Richard Lambert, the chief executive officer of the National Landlords Association, has said:
	“Existing referencing will pick up immigration issues anyway”.
	Gavin Smart of the Chartered Institute of Housing has said that the measures will
	“make it much harder for non-British people to access housing even when they have a legal right to live in the UK. Checking immigration status is complicated so landlords may shy away from letting to anyone who appears not to be British.”
	That is landlords speaking. The effect of the Bill will be that when people such as my son and the children of some of my colleagues go to see a flat, they will be told that the flat is taken. Landlords will not want to take the chance of letting to someone who “might be” an illegal immigrant. I do not believe Ministers understand how it feels to knock on a door and be told, blatantly wrongly, that the flat or room is taken. That is what will happen as a consequence of the Bill.
	Ministers like to give the idea that the problems in accident and emergency and the health service are caused by illegal immigrants. That is quite extraordinary. Even if their figures are true—I believe that they are scare figures based on the assumption that every person who comes here and gets treatment came only for the treatment in the first place—we are still not talking about the systemic reasons for problems in the NHS.
	My mother was of that generation of West Indian women who came here in the ’60s to build the health service. Whether people like it or not, without immigrants we would not have an NHS. For as long as I am in this House, I will not allow Members to get up and say without challenge that the NHS’s problems are caused by immigrant workers. I owe that at least to my parents’ generation.
	Also, there is already legislation about people who are not legally entitled to NHS health care. Why do the Government not get on with collecting money under that legislation, rather than introducing new legislation to do the same thing? It is because they are trying to make a political point and pander to UKIP voters.
	On appeals, we have already heard that 60% of successful appeals are due to administrative error. Why can we not move towards a more robust system for making decisions, rather than cutting people’s appeal rights, which currently
	are the only guarantee they have of some kind of recourse against administrative error? There is also the way the Bill would undermine article 8 of the European convention on human rights, the right to family life.
	In drawing my remarks to a close, let me say this: it is simply not true that immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are responsible for the current pressures on public services. To say that, or to imply it, is to slight the millions of people of immigrant descent who keep all our public services, not just the health service, going, and they will take it as such.
	It is also not true, as some people seek to imply, that immigrants cause low wages. That has been the anti-immigration attack since the 19th century. Immigrants do not cause low wages; predatory employers, insufficient workplace protection and weakened trade unions do that. That was true in the 19th century when people accused the Irish of driving down wages, and it is true today when people make the self-same accusation against the eastern European community.

Mark Harper: I just want to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to a quote from the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), who is now the Labour party’s policy co-ordinator. At the end of 2010, just after the Labour Government had been kicked out of office, he wrote:
	“At the macro-economic level, we’ve been using migration to introduce a covert 21st century incomes policy.”
	It is people on her side of the House who think that the previous Government used migration to keep down wages, not people on the Government side.

Diane Abbott: People on my side of the House say a lot of things, but I do not necessarily agree with them. As Labour Front Benchers have pointed out, the Bill does not address the labour market issues properly.
	We have to be honest about what the anti-immigration narrative in British politics has always been about. The Bill has more to do with political advantage, with demonstrating to UKIP supporters that the Government are cracking down on immigrants, as with the racist van, and with Lynton Crosby’s dividing-line politics than it has to do with good administration. I will believe the Government on immigration when they come forward with practical policies to improve the working of the UK Border Agency and when I see them cracking down on the employers who benefit by employing people off the books.
	This is a very difficult issue, and it is confused by all sorts of urban myths, fears and worries. Generally speaking, immigrants are not the most popular group of people in politics today. Not a day goes by when we do not open the tabloid newspapers and read about some immigrant woman living in an eight-bedroom house in Knightsbridge paid for by the British taxpayer. The test for this House is how we deal with difficult subjects and speak up for people who are not necessarily popular or liked and who do not have a voice. By any test, this piece of legislation is about short-term political advantage. It is of no real benefit to Britons, black or white, or would-be immigrants, black or white. Nobody on the Opposition Benches believes that people who are not entitled to NHS care should be able to get it for free, or that we should have a completely open-door immigration
	policy. We believe in speaking the truth about immigration, because if some people do not do that, we will see a race to the bottom, both in rhetoric and political practice.

Jackie Doyle-Price: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who was right to make the points she made. Lots of urban myths are going round about immigration, notably fanned, dare I say it, by some of the emerging nationalist parties. That makes it all the more important for us to restore confidence in our immigration system. I, too, speak as someone of immigrant descent—in my case, Irish on both sides of my family.
	I have always been proud of Britain’s open borders and proud that this country has always been welcoming to people who want to work hard and make the best of themselves and to those who have sought asylum. That is a source of great pride and something that is very British. Having established that record, however, we have been taken for a soft touch by people who have contempt for our laws and liberties and have used them against us. Thankfully, some of them have been removed, but not until after a very long battle.
	As the hon. Lady mentioned, there are also the so-called immigration advisers who are exploiting people who want nothing more than to make the best of themselves and make a good living. We can and should do a lot more about those advisers, who, in my experience, take £500 off my constituents and then just send them to see me—nice work if you can get it. The more we can do to expose these thieves’ dubious practices, the better. As I say, they are exploiting people who just want to make the best of themselves, and that is totally unacceptable. There is also exploitation by some pretty nasty organised criminals and gangmasters who take advantage of people by trafficking them into what can only be described as modern-day slavery. It is big business. It is important that we have a legal system controlling our immigration that clamps down on these abuses. We do that by making sure that there is no opportunity for illegal immigration to continue.
	I am pleased to see so much in the Bill about tackling sham marriage, which is also big business. My constituency is now very ethnically diverse. There has been quite a significant influx of Nigerians and Ghanaians, in particular. An organised criminal gang recently took advantage of that by targeting a church in Tilbury where sham marriages were being organised for Nigerians because the emergence of a large Nigerian community had made it easy to do that. One of the local priests participated in a sting with the police. He was very brave in taking this on because, as he would articulate, once the licences have been issued, the priest is under an absolute obligation to undertake the marriage. However, having seen the same ill-fitting wedding dress a number of times, he smelled a rat. Having on one occasion recited a list of train stations on the District line and had them recited back to him by the bride and groom, he definitely smelt a rat. It was a very scary concept for him, because this was an organised criminal gang and he felt very intimidated, as did many of the brides. It was clearly a great money-making business. We owe people like Father Tim Codling of Tilbury a great debt of gratitude for participating in that police sting to bring the perpetrators to book. It is
	estimated that they had organised over 30 sham marriages in that church in Tilbury alone. This is a shining example to everyone involved, showing that we should bring these people to book when these things happen.
	Of course Government Members have no problem with people who abide by immigration rules and are here legitimately. However, my position on these matters has hardened since I became a Member of Parliament. I say that because since being elected to this place three and a half years ago I have handled 383 immigration cases, and in half those cases people who had come to see me had broken the immigration rules in some way, so there is real abuse out there.
	I would add that the figure of 383 is actually larger in practice, because many of the people involved are repeat customers. As has been said, there are so many opportunities to make appeals and reapply on different grounds that we tend to see the same people over and over again.
	The changes made by the Bill will not affect anyone who wants to come here legitimately and work. The changes made to the student visa regime have not made a difference to people who want to come to our good universities, but they are hitting bogus colleges. That is evidence, if needed, that we are on the right track.
	The real problem is that we need to tackle overstayers who, frankly, should not be here. Once they have been told that they have no leave to remain, they should not expect to be able to make a fresh application. Many of them have been here for years. When I say to them, “You have no right to work here. How are you supporting yourself?” they reply, “Friends and family,” meaning the same family who are here with them. It is clear that they are earning their money in the black economy. The Bill includes provisions to tackle the work situation and increase the fines for those who employ people illegally, but I also think that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs needs to undertake a bigger task. It is clear that many of the people involved are working in the self-employed sector. We need to clamp down on that black economy and remove their ability to work. This is all about establishing an environment that makes it clear that once someone has been told that they cannot remain here, they should not expect to be able to stay.
	The issue of bank accounts is important. A gentleman from Ghana came to see me after receiving his third rejection and said, “I can’t possibly leave. I’ve got a mortgage.” He took that mortgage out at his own risk. He knew he had no entitlement to stay here and he cannot expect to be able to overstay his welcome. I welcome the fact that the Bill’s measures on bank accounts will actually protect people like him.
	Some of the concerns that have been raised about housing are legitimate, but we should also be looking at social housing. I know of at least two cases where people who were already subletting a council house made a tidy profit out of subletting it to people who were here illegally. We can add that to the list of abuses inflicted on our immigrant population.
	The issue of health provision has been well rehearsed. Although it is fair to say that there are already restrictions on the ability to access health provision, the fact is that often our health service does not pursue those who
	should pay. More than anything else, we need to give a clear message to all health providers that from here on in we expect them to do that.
	On social landlords, we need to be aware of the ingenuity that people will employ to try to get access to housing. Some people take an elastic approach to the law and make up good tales in order to get such access. In one particular case, a lady who was an overstayer came to see me and said she was a victim of domestic violence. She was put in a women’s refuge, which she subsequently left because she alleged that she had been abused there. I asked her why she did not report it to the police, but I did not get a satisfactory answer. The local authority gave her access to a flat, because she had three children under 10. I was more than a little surprised when I got a call four months later from another lady who claimed she was being harassed and abused by her landlady, who happened to be the lady in question. We are dealing with people who have an elastic interpretation of the law and who will not abide by it. We need to be vigilant with regard to all access to public services.
	As I have said, I represent a constituency that is very ethnically diverse. Perhaps the most vocal critics of the current immigration regime are migrants themselves. We all recognise the hard work and values that the people who came here in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s brought. As the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, they are keeping our national health service and our other public services going. It is that group of people more than any other that resents the behaviour that we are witnessing. We should not let anyone suggest that this is about race. We are pandering to the nationalist parties if we let people think that.

Diane Abbott: It is my experience that the last but one immigrant group always slags off the latest one. Whether it is West Indians, East Africans or eastern Europeans, it is almost a rite of passage. They do it because they are insecure. The fact that we hear the children of immigrants complaining about more recent immigrants speaks to their insecurity, rather than proving that their critique is based on fact.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Lady makes a good point. She observed in her speech that such messages surface when people feel more economically insecure, so we should expect to start hearing them at times of economic difficulty. Where she and I part company is that I think that we need to reassure the public that we do not have an open-door immigration policy and that we will take measures to control immigration. Unless we are seen to be doing that, the situation will fester and the only beneficiaries will be the nationalist parties.
	On that basis, I do not think that there is anything to object to in the Bill. The British public would expect us to do many of the things that are in it. For most law- abiding people, including immigrants, nothing in the Bill should cause them any disadvantage. I wholeheartedly recommend the Bill to the House.

John McDonnell: I oppose the Bill and will vote against it because I think that it will be defined, in practice, as a racist Bill and that that will have implications for society. I believe that
	the Bill is the result of electoral positioning; it is not about good governance or the long-term interests of the country. I fear for our long-term interests if we are to be governed by prejudice in this way. I abhor the society that the Bill seeks to create.
	Like many Members, I represent a diverse, multicultural constituency. My west London constituency contains Heathrow and two detention centres, Harmondsworth and Colnbrook. I am often the last representative voice that detainees have recourse to before they are removed from the country. I have been visiting Harmondsworth for nearly 40 years. I remember when it was just a couple of Nissen huts with a dozen people in them. There are now two prison-like institutions that detain 1,000 people, most of whom have committed no crime whatever.
	For many, the migrant’s story is one of desperation. People come from war zones or, like my Irish grandfather, areas of poverty simply to work and lift themselves out of poverty. I am fearful of what the Bill will do to the society that greets those people. In effect, it begins to echo some of the pass laws of apartheid South Africa. It is a society—

Mark Harper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John McDonnell: No, I want to get this on the record. It is a society that echoes those pass laws, a society in which people can be confronted—stopped in the street—and asked for their documentation.

Mark Harper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John McDonnell: No, I want to get this on the record. A society in which people can be asked for their documentation to prove their identity and status.
	Under the Bill, immigration officers will be able to use physical force for all their powers. I have been involved in cases that concern the exercise of physical force. In one case a person was killed, and in others people have been seriously injured as a result of the physical force used in removals. Time and again, concerns have been expressed to the Government about the lack of training for those staff and about the brutality that has taken place as a result, and yet in this Bill we are extending the use of physical force to all immigration officers in exercising their powers.
	Many fear, and I do too, that with the removal of the directions notices, so there is no clear process of informing people when they are to leave the country and what their destination is, we are going back to the process of dawn raids where vans turn up and drag people and families out of their homes. One of the first cases I dealt with after being elected as a Member of Parliament involved an elderly lady who came to my constituency surgery because the family next to her had been dragged out of their house at 6 o’clock in the morning, children and all. She went into the house, obtained the children’s teddy bears and followed the van to Harmondsworth so the children at least had their toys. Is that the society we are returning to as a result of this proposed legislation?
	I believe that the Bill will result in the escalation of detention. It will make it more difficult to challenge detention, to obtain bail and to secure appeals. As was
	said earlier, a third of appeals usually win, with nearly 50% winning entry clearance appeals. The Bill will mean that more people will be detained.
	What is detention like? I refer people to the report of the independent monitoring board of Harmondsworth. These are volunteers appointed by the Minister, reporting to the Minister. Its latest report, from April 2013, is worth reading. It says that many people handle detention stoically, but that many others suffer intense distress. Many are mentally ill. They self-harm. We have had suicide attempts time and again in Harmondsworth and in Colnbrook. At the last count, last year 125 people were assessed under rule 35 by doctors who found that their health was suffering so badly that they should not be detained. Many Members know what rule 35 is: it means that the person should automatically be released. Of the 125 people so designated by doctors in Harmondsworth last year, only 12 were released. One was released because of ill-health, went to Hillingdon hospital and died soon after. That is what detention means. That is the type of suffering the Bill will increase, yet 20% of people in the detention centre get released back into the community. Some have been detained for a long time. I refer back to the report published in April. Two of those people had been detained since 2008, and 38 had been detained for more than a year. For many people, detention is not just a short-term measure before removal.
	I am concerned about what the Bill will mean for the wider community. Nearly 50% of my constituents are black or people of colour. The Bill will mean that any person who is black, is of colour or who just looks foreign will be challenged. They will be challenged by bank managers and landlords, and by the vicar if they want to get married. They will also be challenged if they apply for legal aid. I find that offensive. I voted against identity cards in this House when my own Government brought them forward. The Bill will yet again bring the process of ID cards forward. There will be no ID cards for white people; it will be ID cards for black people, people of colour, or people who look slightly foreign or who have a foreign accent. That is what the Bill will do.
	I find it offensive that the Bill will push more people to the margins. In my constituency, I have enough problems with Rachmanite landlords as it is, with people living in appalling overcrowded conditions and being charged too much. The Bill will create a shadow market, where people who are unable to secure accommodation through some landlords will have to go to others with higher rents. There will be a system of blackmail for those rents by those landlords.
	What if people cannot get a roof over their heads? Where do they go? On to the streets. This is an immigration policy of destitution, isn’t it? Let us be frank about that. If people cannot get a roof over their heads, they go on to the street or are forced out of the country. I deal with many people who would like to leave the country, but cannot even get their papers out of the black hole of the Home Office.
	The banks, the landlords, the driving licence agency and so on will be only the first step in this process of introduction of these pass laws. We know from leaks from the Department for Education, which were exposed in The Guardianearlier this year, that the Government wanted to introduce this sort of system by having teachers check the nationality of their pupils.

Mark Harper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John McDonnell: No. I am not giving way.
	What happens now for people who are sick? They go to their GPs, and yes, they will be treated, but what about the next stage as a result of this Bill? This is the first step. Charges are being introduced and people will be checked to see whether they have a visa and have paid the charge, but the next step will inevitably involve GPs. What happens if nurses and doctors want to fulfil their Hippocratic oath? Will they be fined or imprisoned as landlords will be?
	I am concerned about the society we are creating, and about the premise on which the Bill is being introduced. When it comes to the reality, as MP after MP will demonstrate—particularly London MPs—a documentation check will take place, but many of our constituents have no documentation, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, many have not applied for passports. Others live chaotic lives, and many, as a result of going through the system, have mental health problems and do not have control of their documentation. As I have said time and again, that is a result of not even being able to get their papers back from the Home Office.
	The Bill will create a society that is lacking in compassion, brutal, and lacking in humanity and respect for civil liberties, a two-tier apartheid society that flies in the face of, and is incompatible with, everything that British people associate with their country: compassion, rights, mutual respect, and, yes, support for the underdog. The Bill is derived from the gutter politics of Lynton Crosby; it is an attack on immigrants because supposedly that plays well in British politics. I think that is a fundamental misjudgment of the British people, their values and their decency. I will vote against the Bill because I believe that bringing it forward in this House degrades this House.

Mark Reckless: I listened to the remarks from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about an apartheid society and South African pass laws, and was disappointed that he did not give the Minister the opportunity to intervene on that point. He also said that his grandfather was Irish, and I think the past three speeches from Opposition Members have had that theme, and I would like to reply.
	The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) referred to anti-immigrant and anti-Irish policy, and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said that any Member of the House who had an Irish background would understand and have experience of the points he made. My mother is Irish. She came to this country in the early 1960s, just like the mother of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, to help in the NHS. She became a nurse, trained here, developed a career and raised her family. I do not believe that she has ever had the experience of feeling discriminated against, or felt the prejudice that has been described. Many Irish people over many generations have come to this country and had nothing but welcome.

Diane Abbott: For information, I was talking initially about the very common attitudes, cartoons, rhetoric and political attacks that were applied to the Irish in the 19th century. That was my point.

Mark Reckless: The hon. Lady says that such things were very common. I cannot comment on the 19th century, although she did mention cases that were more up to date. Whether during the depths of the worst of the de Valera regime in the ‘30s, or after what we have seen in the past five years with the move to switch away from a link to sterling and experiment on the Irish people through the imposition of the euro, which has destroyed so much of the Irish economy, I feel that this country—England, the United Kingdom—has stood ready to welcome people who have come from Ireland, often in large numbers. It has welcomed them and they have found work here that they were not able to find in Ireland.
	Other Members have referred to their experiences, history, or what some of their constituents have said, but I do not believe that my mother experienced that prejudice or discrimination as an Irish citizen and passport holder. She has felt welcome in this country.
	I was astonished by what the hon. Lady said. As if a large number of people who are prepared to work harder for less money coming here would have no impact on wages! Other things being equal, it will have a significant impact. The debate has changed in that the most recent large-scale immigration—from central and eastern Europe since 2004—has not been of black, Asian or foreign-looking people, as she described them, but of the white Caucasians. She is so insistent that the immigration debate must be about race but, in a way, that immigration has de-linked race from the debate. It is clear that the debate is not, or largely not, about race.
	Whatever the overall costs and benefits of immigration, the fact is that the impacts are different. People who are well off often buy goods and services produced by people who have come to this country. The people who have come here have, at least initially, competed for some of the less-skilled jobs. If wages are lower than they otherwise would be in those categories, that allows better-off people to get a better or cheaper service—they understandably welcome the people providing it. However, it is less understandable and not right for better-off people who benefit from immigration to look down on those who do not have the same view of those coming here and think that it is because they have antediluvian or even racist attitudes.
	The reality is that less well-off people are competing with those coming in and it affects their wages or how hard they have to work for their wages. Their situation is less good because they are subjected to a large amount of competition from significant numbers of people who have recently come into the country. Sometimes the competition will be between people with skills, but it is often at the lower-skilled end. They will compete with those who might otherwise have those lower-skilled jobs or receive better pay in those jobs. It is not surprising that people are unhappy with the scale of immigration. It is quite wrong for those who benefit from immigration to look down on those people and suggest that their attitudes are racist when what we are seeing is the economic effect.
	One other important context of the Bill is this country’s system of eligibility for benefits, which is different from that in most other EU countries. The UK, Ireland, Estonia, Finland and, importantly, Germany, do not require a significant contributory period prior to eligibility for unemployment benefit. That leads to the possibility of
	people who do not have a long-term connection with this country benefiting without having paid in. I am not suggesting that that is the most significant part of the immigration pull into this country, but it causes concern among my constituents.
	The more significant pull within the benefits system is the possibility of family benefits. The payment of child benefit to children who are resident overseas, be that in Poland or, in greater numbers, in Romania or Bulgaria, is wrong and should be stopped. I believe it could be stopped, even under current EU law, but I am not sure whether Ministers agree. Another pull is child tax credits. Our system of in-work benefits for people in some of the not-so-well-paid jobs is very generous compared with the system prevailing in, for example, Poland, particularly if they have children. That is a significant draw and my constituents are not terribly happy with it. They have paid into a system for a long time and see people who do not have that link with the system immediately taking significant benefits from it.
	Those two problems are the basis and context of the debate. The recent large-flow immigration de-links race from the immigration debate, although some people would like to preserve the link. In addition, when more recent immigrants compete for jobs with people from a previous migration, the latter understandably object. We will either have to change our benefit system, or leave the European Union.

Fiona Mactaggart: Some of the hon. Gentleman’s points make sense. There is a case for ensuring fair competition on wages and that benefits are not paid to children who have never seen the UK and never intend to, but none of those points will be addressed by the legislation. Why is he speaking about them?

Mark Reckless: One area within the broad range the hon. Lady describes is the charge for the use of NHS services. If someone comes to this country for a considerable period, say as an overseas student, it is right that they should make a contribution. She is right to say that in many of these areas we are not able to make the changes that I would like within our domestic legal system, because of the European Union. It is right, therefore, that my party has said that it will give the people an in/out referendum so that they can decide whether they want us to be an independent country or whether they want to continue to have these rules set by the European Union.
	One impact of the scale of the immigration we have seen to this country is the linking of those issues in a way that people understand. If people want to control immigration and reduce the numbers coming from the European Union, we once again need to be an independent country. Over the next year as people from Romania and Bulgaria gain the ability to come here for employment, rather than self-employment—or purported self-employment—or other reasons, I hope that we do not see a huge influx of people from those two countries, which might get in the way of the very good progress that the Government have made towards our target of cutting immigration from the hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. Were that to happen and to reflect on the Government—perhaps unfairly, given that it was the previous Government who signed up to that treaty of accession—it would be unfortunate if in any way that were to prevent the referendum that we have promised coming to pass in 2017.
	The Bill will bear down on several channels for immigration, and some of the issues it addresses are quite technical. The Home Office has looked at all the issues and made progress in many different areas to reduce the overall scale of immigration. Part 2, on restricting the right to appeal, strikes a good balance. I have referred to the NHS charge in part 3, but it also addresses the need to ensure that people have the right to be here before giving them a driving licence. That is clearly a good thing. In the United States, that is a massive political issue, and states have very different policies on it. In this country, it seems to have gone by default, but at last we have a Government who are waking up and ensuring that people get a driving licence only if they have a right to do so by virtue of their eligibility to live in this country.
	I welcome the Bill’s approach on article 8. We have heard some excellent proposals recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). I thought that they were very sound and it was a shame that they did not make it into the Crime and Courts Bill, and his approach may have further benefits over and above those in the Bill. Nevertheless, the provisions in the Bill are very sound. For example, and crucially, clause 14 would insert into the 2002 Act a new section 117B(4) that states:
	“Little weight should be given to…a private life, or…a relationship formed with a qualifying partner, that is established by a person at a time when the person is in the United Kingdom unlawfully.”
	That is overdue. It continues:
	“Little weight should be given to a private life established by a person at a time when the person’s immigration status is precarious.”
	The fact that that will be in primary legislation will at last give us a real opportunity to rein in the courts and their overly expansive interpretation of article 8. In this instance, it is not so much the European Court in Strasbourg, but our own domestic courts that have had an excessively loose approach to the definition of article 8.
	I add one caution. The provisions on article 8, which are good, will act as a restraint—although I look forward to reading them in more detail—but there remains an issue with how section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 has been used. As a general principle of family law, it is right that the interests of the child be paramount—for instance, in a divorce case—but I am much less convinced that it is useful in considering the deportation, following a long prison sentence, of a foreign national, not least because it is not easy for immigration judges to come to a fair and proper assessment of the interests of that child. I suspect that very often the individual concerned will not be a good parental influence on the child, but even where it might have a small impact—if it might become more difficult for that child to see a parent—I am not convinced that it should always be the trump card, which is what section 55 has become. However bad the crime committed, so long as a foreign national can find a UK partner and have a UK nationality child, a reference to section 55 has come close to trumping all other considerations in the eyes of the courts. The article 8 stuff is good, but I am worried that section 55 will still be applied, even when the overall balance, including the public interest, would have individuals deported to their home country.
	I congratulate the Home Secretary, the current and former Immigration Ministers and officials in the Home Office, because one thing about the Home Office is that it does respond to a lead. As we saw under the noble
	Lord Howard, when Ministers have a clear set of objectives and direction of travel, more often than not officials respond, and in many areas, the Home Office has done good work that has not been properly sung. For instance, appeals are going a different way because of operating criminal nexus and because judges can now consider information from police short of a conviction. That has largely been upheld as proper and judges have allowed it, and some seriously bad people have left the country who would otherwise have stayed because of the excellent work by Ministers.
	I think also of the work on the electoral roll. Previously, Commonwealth citizens would apply to be on the roll even though they had no immigration leave to be here, but now Ministers are insisting on immigration leave and the guidance to electoral registration officers has changed. Rather than people being able to refer to their being on the electoral roll as evidence of their legitimacy, we now have the proper checks and linkages. Those are just two examples, but an awful lot of unsung work goes on in the Home Office. I welcome that, as well as the Bill, which will assist us, at least, in bearing down on immigration, and I give credit to Ministers for their work.

Paul Blomfield: It is interesting that we started this debate by being reminded that the Home Secretary was busy distancing herself from the disgraceful ad vans. It is just unfortunate that she has applied the same school of politics to developing the Bill, which is absolutely from the ad van approach to tackling immigration. In her own words, she was trying in the Bill to create “a really hostile environment” for migrants, and not just illegal ones—before the Minister intervenes. The narrative surrounding the Bill is creating a hostile environment for all migrants and a toxic background for a sane debate about immigration.
	Let us look at some of the provisions. I will not go into the detail on appeals, because many others have, but what sort of approach is this? The reason we have too many appeals is that too many initial decisions are wrong. The majority of entry clearance decisions are wrong. The appeals system is a safety valve. What approach is it to take away the safety valve, instead of dealing with the problem at the heart of it?
	I find the stuff on landlords curious because I thought that this was the Government who had launched the red tape challenge. Where are we now on the red tape challenge? We are creating a needless bureaucracy for landlords who, in large numbers, have said they do not want it. Who will train our landlords to become immigration experts? Where are people to live while they wait for a decision from the Home Office? The Minister represents the party that proclaims itself to be the party of the family. What about the family waiting for mum’s spousal visa? Where will they set up home? According to the Bill, the landlord would breach the duty if he or she entered into an agreement to allow a disqualified person to occupy a property whether or not that person was named on the tenancy agreement. This is ill thought out, with very negative social consequences.
	I want to concentrate on NHS charges and on the proposals to introduce a health surcharge for non-European economic area temporary migrants. This was proposed
	before today’s research was published on the actual cost of NHS use by visitors and temporary migrants. Sadly, it is too reflective of the non-evidence-based approach that the Government are adopting to this Bill; the prescription has been set out before the doctor has diagnosed the condition. We have some of the facts now, but there are question marks over some of the evidence in the report which I would like to share with the Minister.
	The report says:
	“We have reviewed the medical literature to try to find evidence of how visitors and migrants use healthcare compared to the host population…The findings suggest overall that recent migrants are less likely to use UK primary and secondary care services than UK born residents…At this time, as a starting point, we have therefore assumed in the model that migrant propensity to use NHS services is equivalent to the non-migrant population.”
	What does that mean? That “we have found one thing but based all our modelling on something else to exaggerate the costs.”
	Similarly the independent assessment says that the health surcharge will generate £230 million a year. But we understand that the level at which it will be set is £200. On the basis of information that I have received from the Library this afternoon, that will apply to 552,000 people. The cost would be £110 million a year, less than half the level suggested in the report.
	The figure of £2 billion for the cost of visitor and migrant use of the NHS in England includes EU and EEA nationals of course, but it also includes workers who already pay national insurance contributions and taxes, and students, and I will come back to students in a moment. Whatever it is, it is not
	“The true cost of health tourism”
	as the Daily Mail described it today and as, I am sure, a number of Government Benches would characterise it in their contributions.
	I go back to the Home Secretary’s opening remarks, where she talked about the cost of those who in the words of the research
	“conceal the fact that they have come to the UK specifically to use NHS services that they are not entitled to access for free”.
	The Home Secretary said that that cost was several hundred millions of pounds. I hope she will take the opportunity to correct the record because the report says that the cost is “very uncertain” but is estimated to be about £70 million within a range of £20 million to £100 million, or 0.06% of the NHS budget.
	Of course there are already rules on charging people who are not ordinarily residents in the UK for using the NHS. The evidence on how the system is working is patchy, but the NHS appears to be recovering gross income of about £15 million to £25 million, less than 20% of the estimated chargeable costs. Add in the costs of administering the current system—estimated at over £15 million—and the current overseas visitor charging system may be generating a small profit, according to the Department of Health’s own assessment. Does the Home Secretary look to improve the current system? No, she introduces a new one without a full impact assessment of how much it will cost. This really is dog-whistle politics at its worst, building policy on prejudice rather than on facts and setting it in the context of a falsely constructed debate around health tourism.
	That is clearly illustrated by the fact that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the majority of the people who will be impacted by the health surcharge will be students. I was fortunate enough to host a breakfast seminar before the summer recess at which the guest speaker was a former higher education Minister in one of the Australian states. He said that he was delighted to be in the House of Commons because it gave him the opportunity to congratulate the Home Office on its work, which had led to a significant increase in the number of students choosing to study in Australia rather than in the UK.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that there is a danger that, by placing yet more strictures on potential international students, the Bill will send a signal that they are not welcome in the UK? This is such an important export industry for the UK, if I can put it like that, and it is important that the mood music—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Paul Blomfield: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is rightly highlighting the concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House in previous debates. UK higher education is a major export earner, contributing about £8 billion to the UK economy annually.
	I remember an exchange with the Immigration Minister when he was newly appointed, at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary university group, in which he pointed out that we should be talking not only about the income that international students brought in but about the costs that were incurred, including the cost to the health service. I went back to Sheffield university and said that we needed to look into that issue. The university commissioned Oxford Economics to carry out the most rigorous assessment possible into the income involved and the costs for our city. That assessment did not just cover the NHS and education; it went to the nth degree, covering every conceivable cost including traffic congestion. It concluded that international students were worth about £120 million a year to the Sheffield economy in net terms, which probably equated to about 6,000 jobs. Measures such as those in the Bill will serve only to discourage students from coming to the UK.
	The Minister will argue that the health surcharge will bring us into line with our major competitors, which require health insurance as a condition for obtaining a student visa, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) pointed out, it comes on the back of other changes introduced by the Home Office that have done huge damage to the competitive position of our universities. This will simply be seen as another signal that international students are not welcome in the UK.

Andrew Bridgen: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the latest university entrance figures, which show that the number of foreign students applying to and getting into our top universities has actually increased this year?

Paul Blomfield: I am well aware of those figures. In general, the defence has been that the numbers were flatlining and that there has been a slight increase this
	year. There has, however, been a disturbing fall in numbers in certain areas, including taught postgraduate courses, and that is a problem. The point is not that there might be a slight increase; it is that we are losing market share. Higher education is a hugely growing sector of the international economy. The Government, through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, have estimated that the number of international students travelling around the world will have doubled by 2020. It is not good enough to be complacent about flatlining figures or about small increases, because they mean that we are losing market share.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed students’ concerns many times. Does he agree that a similar argument applies to the student visitor visa? Will he join me in opposing any proposal to clamp down on those arrangements, on the ground that it would also damage our colleges?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I point out to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) that quite a lot of Members are waiting to get in, including Dr Huppert? Perhaps if he takes fewer interventions, we might get to the hon. Gentleman.

Paul Blomfield: I will take that advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, and take no more interventions.
	We need to look carefully at the student visitor route to see how much is displacement and exactly what is going on within those numbers.
	My major concern, and that of our universities, is that we are losing market share as regards university students coming to the UK. The health surcharge obviously comes on top of a number of measures that the Government have introduced, and it is not just about the health surcharge. The universities are concerned about the provisions on landlords. They are worried, as other Members have been, about what will happen and that landlords—we know that 83% of them do not want these measures—will take the easy way out. We have seen the evidence in the reports over the past couple of weeks of letting agents in London who are discriminating against people on racial and ethnic grounds and on grounds of their appearance. The danger is that that will happen in this case and that international students, often leaving home to come and study here for the first time, will be discriminated against and will find an unwelcoming environment in this country.
	The Bill is the kind of legislation that brings politics into disrepute. It is gambling with our economy and our reputation just for a cheap headline. People deserve better.

James Clappison: I declare an interest as a landlord, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	This has been a good debate with eloquent speeches from Members on both sides of the House, including excellent speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and many others. Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill, which is—let it be said—the first
	major Immigration Bill of this Government and one that contains a number of sensible measures that I believe should have a beneficial effect.
	I welcome the reforms to charge for national health service use, to deal with sham marriages and to reform article 8 as it relates to foreign criminals. I think that reform will strike a better balance with the public interest, which is something for which I have called for a long time. It is worth pausing to remember that the people whose cases we are discussing have come to this country and have committed serious offences, sometimes really serious offences, which should call into question the public interest of allowing them to remain here.
	I also welcome the measures that are designed to streamline the appeals system, as effective immigration control has, I believe, all too often been undermined by multiple appeals and procedures. To be fair to the previous Government, they made some well-intentioned efforts to reform the appeals system. In some cases, they made it less complex, but it remains a complex system. I can remember the expression “a one-stop shop for appeals” being bandied about under the previous Government. That was their aim, but they did not entirely fulfil it—although, to be fair to them, they did try. Some Labour Back Benchers would do well to remember that.
	I welcome the fact that the Opposition are not opposing the Bill and will examine the measures in Committee. That is the proper approach to take. I would part company with the Opposition, however, on the question of net migration and effective immigration control. During the course of the debate, Opposition Members have made a big point about whether net migration has fallen by a third or a quarter, and have argued over the statistics. That shows a little brass neck, to say the least, given what happened to net migration under the previous Government. It increased from 50,000 to 250,000 per year over the lifetime of that Government. I would calculate that as a fivefold increase, yet now Labour is debating whether net migration has fallen by a quarter or a third while often opposing some of the measures needed to bring about that reduction.
	I believe the issue should be an important objective of government and that we should have proper immigration control. I recognise the contribution of immigrants to society and their worth as individuals, and I believe that when they come to this country and are legally entitled to be here they should certainly be welcome. We must bear in mind, however, that demand to come to this country from less economically developed countries is almost unlimited. It is one of the major duties of a Government to impose proper immigration control in the light of that demand, which our constituents know about and can see reflected in news stories and developments in other parts of the world.
	As the demand to come to this country is almost unlimited, to keep our quality of life we must have regard to population growth and population density. Immigration is a major driver of population. Our population is 62 million, and to keep it below 70 million net migration must be carefully controlled, and certainly brought down from 250,000, which is what it was at the end of the previous Government’s time in office. Otherwise the population increase—5 million, as has been said, would be due to migration—would produce a population
	of 70 million, which is equal to the populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Sheffield, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol and Oxford added together, and accommodation would have to be made for that.
	On the Opposition’s policy, I was not encouraged by the response from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) to my question about whether the Labour party would have a target for net migration. The Opposition draw attention to the fact that we cannot control all the factors that relate to net migration. Of course we cannot control how many people choose to leave the country, but that does not mean that we should not control those factors that we can control, including the number of people who are permitted to enter the country. If we give way to the demand for lots of people to come to this country, net migration will run much higher than the figure to which it has been brought down by the Government.
	I am not encouraged by the policy on migration adopted by the Leader of the Opposition. In his first foray into that policy area, he told readers of the Sunday Mirror that he wanted a new policy on migration linking foreign workers to apprenticeships. He said:
	“We think that can create up to 125,000 new apprenticeships over the course of five years. And that is a massive boost in skills of our young people and that is really important.”
	No doubt it is: many of us would say that that is something that we should do anyway without linking it to migration. The right hon. Gentleman also made the point that he wanted to link every one of those apprenticeships to the admission of a foreign worker into this country, which means 125,000 extra people, as well as their dependants, as it is the custom to admit dependants with foreign workers who are allowed into this country for work.
	With other things being equal, and without any change in policy in other directions by the Opposition—there has certainly been no indication that there will be a reduction to compensate for this in other migration flows—over the lifetime of a Parliament we would see an increase of 125,000-plus in net migration, or 40,000 a year, which would go a considerable way towards doing away with the reduction achieved by the Government. That puts into context the Opposition’s quibbling about whether net migration has fallen by a quarter or a third. If he has time, I invite the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who speaks knowledgeably on these matters, to confirm that that is the Labour party’s policy, and that 125,000 foreign workers would be admitted in line with the 125,000 increase in apprenticeships. Will he confirm that in addition to those foreign workers, their dependants would be admitted, and will he provide an estimate of how much extra net migration would result? In my calculation, that would produce at best some several hundred thousand net migrants over the course of a Parliament.
	We need a much more serious approach to the question of migration control. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their approach. This is something that is important to our constituents—certainly to my constituents—as we do not want to live in a grossly overcrowded country, with all the consequences that would flow from an increase in population to upwards of 70 million as a result of the policies that have been outlined by the Opposition. This is an important subject. I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends on their
	approach. “Firm but fair” is an expression used by the Opposition. I believe that this is a coalition Government with a firm but fair immigration policy, and I exhort my right hon. and hon. Friends to stick with it.

Lindsay Hoyle: Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—at last I can make my contribution.
	I want to begin by complimenting a number of hon. Members on their absolutely excellent speeches, especially the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who brought an amazing level of humanity and intelligence to the debate; my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), as well as my good friends, the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott); and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), whom I congratulate on the way in which she made the case on housing and the contribution that migrant communities make to this country.
	We are debating the Bill at amazing speed. The programme motion is ludicrous, and the lack of any pre-legislative scrutiny whatsoever is breathtaking. It seems to me a negation of our duty as parliamentarians not to have the proper opportunity to examine the Bill—but then, of course, we never were going to be able to examine this Bill, because it is all about dog-whistle politics and appealing to a particularly low common denominator now being promoted by the Daily Mail and other newspapers.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Corbyn: No. I am going to make my speech.
	I would like the House to consider for a moment the general narrative that is current in this country and across Europe—a narrative condemning people who are migrants and condemning people who try to survive in Europe, and at the same time expressing deep concern when 200 were drowned off the coast of Italy in the tragedy of Lampedusa, along with the 20,000 others who have died trying to cross the Mediterranean in the past 20 years, as well as those who have drowned trying to get to the Canary islands or to Greece. Yes, some of those were economic migrants and some were asylum seekers. Yes, some were trying to escape from human rights abuses in Eritrea, Sudan and many other countries, and we express concern at what happened.
	We need to think about why people seek to move in order to survive. Do not we, as a powerful industrial country, have some responsibility not just for the economic situation that this country faces but, through our contributions to the European Union, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation, and to the general agreement on tariffs and to trade and other organisations, for the sense of economic imbalance around the world?
	We should be a little more sanguine about immigration and emigration. During the 1950s and 1960s, which, it is always apocryphally told, were a time of mass migration into Britain, the figures show—they are helpfully put together in the House of Commons Library briefing—net
	migration from Britain during the whole of that period. A very large number of British people went to live elsewhere and made their contributions and their lives in other countries. They did it for economic reasons and sent money home. Indeed, at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, there was a regular migration of more than 100,000 people a year from Britain, mainly to the United States, Canada and Australia, but to other places as well. Migration—

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Corbyn: No, I am not giving way.
	Migration is something that people do to try to survive. We should think about that for a moment. We should also for another moment—I take the point that was made so well by my Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington—have some respect for the enormous contribution to the economy of this country that has been made by people who migrated here. Had there not been migration from the Caribbean, south Asia, Ireland, central Africa and many other parts of the world into this country over the past 50 years or so, what kind of health service would we have? What kind of education system would we have? What kind of industrial base would we have? What kind of society would we be? Would London have been the multicultural capital of the world hosting the Olympics? I think not. We would be a much poorer, much less relevant society and a much less relevant country. We need to think about the contribution that has been made and respect people for it.
	Members on the Government Benches got very angry when my Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington was telling it like it is about the treatment of people in detention centres, the powers of arrest that the Bill gives to immigration officers, and the circumstances in which some people are removed from this country by force. I have met the family of Jimmy Mubenga, who died when he was forced to leave this country. I remember many years ago, shortly after I had been elected to this House, telling the House about a young Kurdish man called Shiho Iyguven, who was threatened with removal to Turkey and took his own life in a detention centre. His son, who was a tiny baby at the time, came to see me and asked, “What was dad like?” All I could say was, “Unfortunately, he was told he was going to be deported and in desperation he took his own life out of fear.”
	We are taking some serious measures here today. I intervened earlier on one of my colleagues about the behaviour of the immigration service in carrying out the stop-and-search policy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington talked about, making Conservative Members so very angry. Imagine a dispassionate, observant visitor to London who happened upon a tube station in Wembley or in the east end, or anywhere where there is a substantially multi-cultural population, seeing non-uniformed people go up to somebody, show a badge of authority and start asking about their immigration status, and when they start protesting seeing the police arrive and say they have to answer the questions. What would such a visitor on holiday in London think if they saw that going on? I am sorry to say that that is exactly the direction that the Bill takes us in.
	The Conservative party are very concerned, and have been as long as I can remember, about the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights. They are an obsession with them. Never mind that the convention was written by a Tory lawyer and introduced in 1950 and has done a great deal to give people a benchmark of human rights throughout the member states of the Council of Europe. They want to say that article 8, the right to family life, somehow undermines the British way of life. So we have this curious clause 14, which talks about public interest considerations in respect of article 8 of the European convention on human rights. It is strangely written because much of it consists of assertions of the wishes of the Government of the day; they are not requirements but a series of assertions. It is only when one gets well into the clause that one finds specific requirements.
	The clause seeks to guide immigration judges in the direction of minimising the question of family life, and because of the way in which it deals with children in family life, it will often be damaging to the interests of children who happen to have parents who may be applying for the right to remain in this country. I hope that in Committee there will be a serious examination of the whole question of article 8, and that when the Bill eventually reaches the House of Lords it will be able to do something more useful, such as protecting the rights of all of us by asserting the necessity of us remaining within the European convention on human rights, and therefore enjoying the protection of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. I know that Conservative Members are obsessed with the idea that we must withdraw from the ECHR, but it is a treaty obligation. Once we withdraw from a treaty, we are sending out the message that everyone else can do the same. Where then is the benchmark that we claim for ourselves of justice in society?
	Like many others who have spoken in the debate, I deal with a large number of immigration cases—asylum seekers, family reunion cases, student visas. People come to my office and we do our best for them within the rules and try to get answers to their questions. I have no great problem with many of the civil servants who work in the Home Office, and I pay tribute to the many who work extremely hard, particularly those who are not particularly well paid, but they have a mammoth task. In 2008, I remember showing someone who came into my office a letter saying that legacy cases would all be resolved by mid-summer 2011. He duly came back in mid-summer 2011, queued up for my advice bureau for three hours, came in, put the letter down in front of me and said, “There, Mr Corbyn. It’s now mid-summer 2011,” which it absolutely was. It was June—you can’t get more mid-summer than that. I duly wrote to the Home Office asking when he would get a response, and I was told, “Maybe two years.”
	People’s lives are on hold for year after year. They cannot travel, possibly cannot work or study and cannot make a living for themselves. They are in insecure accommodation and have an insecure future. What kind of life is that to thrust on anybody? It is an uncertain situation in which to bring up children. I ask the Minister to bring a sense of efficiency to the Home Office in dealing with long-term cases, which bring people great misery and difficulties.
	I shall join my colleagues in voting against the Bill tonight, partly because of the details that it contains on education, housing, some aspects of health and so on, but also because of the atmosphere that it will create and the message that it will send at this particular time. Let us start with a sense of humanity. Every case is a human story, and every human story has its ups and downs, its triumphs and tragedies. Instead we have dog-whistle politics, the mantras being that every immigrant is an illegal immigrant who must somehow be condemned and that immigration is the cause of all the problems in our society.
	A shortage of housing can be dealt with by building houses—it kind of helps. The two things go together. Recognising people’s skills and their ability to contribute to our society helps us all. If we descend into a UKIP-generated xenophobic campaign, it weakens and demeans all of us and our society, and we are all the losers for that.

Henry Smith: I wholeheartedly support the whole Bill, but I wish particularly to address my remarks to chapter 2 of part 3, which deals with the impact on the national health service of the cost of treating foreign nationals.
	Last year, I had the privilege of introducing a private Member’s Bill, the NHS Audit Requirements (Foreign Nationals) Bill. I am delighted that most of the measures that were pursued in that Bill have found their way into the Government’s Immigration Bill. In preparing my private Member’s Bill, I sent out Freedom of Information Act requests to all NHS health trusts—more than 400 requests—asking what the impact on their finances was of treating overseas visitors. I received replies from less than a quarter of trusts, and those from which I did receive replies gave haphazard information. Some recorded the treatment of foreign nationals in ways that did not comply with Department of Health guidelines. That shows that our understanding of the scale of the issue is at best limited and, in many parts of the country, virtually non-existent.
	There are wide-ranging estimates of the cost of treating overseas visitors on the national health service. At the very lowest end, a figure of some £200 million is often quoted. Interestingly, the European Commission quotes a figure of £1.5 billion, and the Government quote the rather modest figure of some £500 million, which was arrived at through the Department of Health’s independent study. Of that £500 million, £388 million is identified as being spent on the treatment of foreign nationals who would otherwise not be entitled to free NHS care, and those costs should be recovered. The figure for the treatment of those who come to this country specifically for NHS treatment, which is commonly known as health tourism, ranges anywhere between £70 million and £300 million. The scale of the impact on the NHS budget, and therefore on the British taxpayer, is quite significant.
	I do not think that anybody in this House would claim that those in need of medical attention should be denied it. Indeed, many people come to this country to receive the innovative and first-class health care our health system provides, and that is absolutely right. However, it is not right that the British taxpayer should
	have to pick up the charges for treating people who should be paying through reciprocal arrangements with other countries or through their own medical insurance.

Pamela Nash: On what evidence are the hon. Gentleman’s figures for health tourism based?

Henry Smith: They are from an independent assessment commissioned by the Department of Health. As I mentioned, I have tried to get information through FOI requests, and the figures from those trusts that hold statistics are quite staggering, but more than three quarters were unable to provide any figures at all, which suggests that the scale of the problem is probably larger than the Department recognises.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Henry Smith: I need to make progress and other right hon. and hon. Members are yet to speak, so I will not give way.
	It is estimated that if we could recover just three quarters of the money spent treating foreign nationals on the NHS, through insurance or reciprocal arrangements such as the European insurance health card scheme, that would be the equivalent of being able to employ an additional 4,000 doctors or 8,500 nurses, so the scale of the issue is quite acute. This is a point of fairness, both to the British taxpayer and to the patients using the health service, whether residents of this country or people visiting it, and it is one that I think this House has taken too long to address properly. That is why I very much support the provisions of the Bill and look forward to its swift passage through the House.

Dominic Raab: I congratulate the Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration and fully support the objectives of this important Bill. Britain must of course remain an outward-looking nation in the 21st century, but the British people do not want to become a soft touch for those arriving who are not capable of contributing and who are dependent on the state rather than self-reliant. We should enforce the law to prevent and deter illegal immigration and discourage benefit tourism, and we most certainly should remove those who commit serious crimes and abuse their right to be here.
	Public confidence in the ability of the political class to grapple with the concerns over immigration is itself a major issue. I listened carefully to many Members who spoke this afternoon, including the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is no longer in the Chamber. He drew a moral equivalence between the Bill and apartheid. I want to put on the record how offensive I find that, and I say that as the son of someone who fled the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia. To draw that kind of moral equivalence is utterly offensive and repugnant and shows how out of touch, albeit with legitimate intentions and objectives, he and some other Opposition Members have become.
	Failing to address immigration is the irresponsible thing to do. Having worked on war crimes and as a diplomat in Europe, and having seen the rise of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Jean-Marie Le Pen in France
	and Jörg Haider in Austria, I know that that is what happens when the political elite bury their heads in the sand. That is the real fertile ground for extremist politics. Of course, the weaknesses in the current system make life harder for those we want to welcome, of whom there are many. So let us ensure that this Bill does what it says on the tin; otherwise we risk exacerbating the public concern that is the real fertile ground for extremist politics.
	For all the outrage among Labour Members, I recall the speech by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in 2007 at the Labour party conference, where he bellowed:
	“let me be clear any newcomer to Britain who is caught selling drugs or using guns will be thrown out.”
	With support from Labour Members, he passed the UK Borders Act 2007, which made deportation mandatory for foreign criminals jailed for at least a year—or at least that was the theory. But he paralysed his own legislation and broke his promise by inserting a catch-all human rights clause that led to the perverse results in the system that we see today. I know that the Home Secretary will be mindful of making sure that this time those of us on the Government Benches deliver on what we promise.
	With that in mind, I want to focus on part 2, particularly the non-suspensive appeals procedure and the provisions on article 8 appeals. This is not some technical, legalistic issue; it affects real lives. In my constituency, a local waiter called Bishal Gurung was killed in a vicious attack, and the perpetrator, Rocky Gurung—no relation—was convicted of manslaughter. He evaded deportation to Nepal by claiming his right to family life, even though he is a single adult with no dependants. We are not talking about returning people who might face torture or real threat to life or limb on their return home—I certainly would not support that—but about serious criminals convicted and jailed here who evade removal on the basis of family and social ties that are often loose, if not outright artificial. Such cases, which are happening on some scale, warp the moral balance of the British justice system, endanger the public, and make “human rights” dirty words for many people, and that is a shame.
	Cases such as the one in my constituency are not isolated. When I submitted a freedom of information request in 2010, it was disclosed that successful article 8 challenges by foreign national criminals were running at a rate of just under 400 per year—61% of all successful challenges. When I re-submitted the request in 2012, I found that the rate was 188 per year, but that that was 89% of all successful challenges. This is not about a few minor episodes or a few cases here and there reported by the tabloid media; it is a major issue.
	The problem of violent, sexual and other offenders pleading article 8 to scupper deportation arises because of the rights inflation that has taken place in Strasbourg and here in the UK under the Human Rights Act 1998. In recent years, the European Court in Strasbourg has inflated the grounds for challenging deportation orders, adding tier upon tier of legal excuses which hamstring the effective operation of our border controls. Encouraged by the Human Rights Act, the UK courts have gone further still in stretching the application of article 8, so we cannot just blame Europe. It is not wholly a European issue, but it is at least partly a home-grown problem.
	In June 2012, the Home Secretary sought to address the problem by changing the immigration rules, but because it was only a rule change under section 4 of the Human Rights Act, it has not been upheld by our courts. In the Izuazu case, Mr Justice Blake rather pointedly stated:
	“Whilst it is open to Parliament to change the law by primary legislation unless and until it does so these decisions are binding...and will be followed”.
	I am afraid to say that I warned that, because of the way in which Human Rights Act works, the rule change alone would not be enough to stop these spurious challenges. The Act requires UK courts to read down regulations inconsistent with the Strasbourg case law or the UK’s own interpretation of the convention.
	We are where we are, but we should now strain every sinew to make sure we deliver on the rebalancing of the law that we so sorely need. My fear this time around is that simply spelling out the public interest considerations in favour of deportation in article 8 cases will not achieve that aim. It leaves a very wide margin of discretion for the courts to consider, decide and balance the various competing factors for and against deportation. Under section 3 of the Human Rights Act, the provisions have to be interpreted and the balancing exercise conducted in way that is compatible with the convention, which will itself be based on the existing case law stretched by the UK courts.
	The risk is that little will change in practice. In my view, it would have been better to cut out all the article 8 challenges by foreign criminals sentenced to 12 months or more—the very serious offenders. That would fit the original intention of paragraph 2 of article 8 of the European convention, and such a mandatory clause could not be trumped by article 8 because of the way in which section 3(1) of the HRA works. It states that primary legislation has an overriding effect, but only when it is impossible to read it down in a way that makes it compatible with human rights law. We will have to look at that in Committee.
	The second key issue in part 2 is raised by appeal clauses 11 to 13, which aim to reduce the number of appeal decisions in order to avoid the process being strung out at great expense to the taxpayer. They also seek to allow appeals to be lodged without suspending the deportation process, so they will be heard when the appellant has already been returned, unless—this is an important caveat—removal would cause serious and irreversible harm.
	I wholeheartedly support that common-sense principle, but I would be interested to hear the Minister explain how it will work in practice. What is to stop an appeal direct to Strasbourg—over the UK courts—that may result in a rule 39 indication calling on the Home Office to suspend deportation pending appeal to Europe?
	For these clauses to be effective, we would need the Government to be willing to reject those rule 39 indications, which used to be treated as recommendations only, rather than as binding orders. However, as became clear during the Abu Qatada case and our debate on the Crime and Courts Bill earlier this year, the Government treat rule 39 indications from Strasbourg as binding. Will that change? If not, what is to stop these clauses being thwarted by Strasbourg?
	I have taken advice from counsel on both of my points—on article 8 and on non-suspensive appeals—and it has tended to reinforce my fear that the Government’s laudable attempts to rebalance the deportation regime risk being unpicked. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.
	Will this Bill really do what it says? Subject to the Minister’s reply, I will consider—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has mentioned this—re-tabling my amendment to the deportation regime, which would solve the problem and which carried broad cross-party support during the passage of the Crime and Courts Bill, although we were timed out by the Leveson debate.
	It is critical that we give proper effect to the laudable aims of the Bill. I praise Ministers to the hilt for diagnosing and focusing on the right issues, but we have to make sure we deliver, both to rebalance our deportation regime in favour of the public interest in removing serious criminals, and to ensure that public trust is not yet again frayed by another promise of reform that is not in fact delivered.

Julian Huppert: I will try to fit my comments into the time available.
	This country benefits substantially from immigration. We benefit economically and culturally. We are net improved by immigration, which has taken place for many hundreds of years. Are there, however, problems with illegal immigration? Yes, absolutely, and we should deal with many of them, including people who are being trafficked and held in quasi-slavery conditions.
	I want an immigration system that knows what is happening in this country and knows who has come in and who has left. We need to bring back exit checks so that we know who is in and who is out. We need a system where decisions are made quickly and correctly, rather than one with the current problems. That is what I think the Minister ought to focus on, and we debated it this morning in Westminster Hall.
	The Bill deals with a different set of issues. It is a shame that there was no pre-legislative scrutiny, because we could have fleshed out a lot of the details and come to understand the proposals. It is clear from today’s debate that not everybody, and I include myself, understands the details of much that is being proposed. There is still a lot to understand and that is a problem. We need the system to work properly, but that must not be at the expense of a system that is fair.
	The Bill definitely has some good bits. For example, our dealing with dodgy immigration advisers will be welcomed by anybody who has repeatedly to deal with constituents affected by the issue. I am, however, concerned about certain other things. Effectively abolishing application for immigration bail is of particular concern, especially when the Home Office does not seem to have any evidence that it is a specific problem that needs to be addressed.
	I continue to be very concerned, like other hon. Members, about the end of appeals. That could be dangerous when we are not making the right decisions. When we are getting the decisions right, we can look at how we can stop people prolonging the process, but when so many appeals are successful, it shows that there
	are problems. If we remove people before they have made their appeal, how can we be sure that we will hear the appeal properly? If somebody has been wronged, will there be a chance for them to present their case within a reasonable period of time? We have also heard about the needs of children in the UK who have been separated from their parents through deportation.
	I do not think that the landlord proposal is a good idea. Indeed, I think that it is a profoundly bad idea. I am pleased that rather than it being implemented everywhere, there will be only one pilot in one location to test it. I am confident that it will fail the test, as did the vans, which I am pleased have been abandoned. If it proves not to be a good idea, we will be able to vote to ensure that it does not go ahead anywhere else. I am very pleased about that.
	I am concerned about how workable the landlord proposal will be. I am concerned that it will take 48 hours for the Home Office to verify somebody’s status. I wish that it was always that fast when I ask it something. In many areas, that will be too long and landlords will not take the risk of renting to somebody who cannot prove their status on the spot. If we are to implement the proposal, the Home Office has to find an easy and clear way for people to show that they have the correct status. That must also apply to British citizens who do not have a passport. Otherwise, we will drive people into the hands of exploitative rogue landlords. This matter must be subject to the affirmative procedure so that we can be absolutely sure that we will get a vote.
	On the health care proposals, visitors who are here to stay with their family or on business are already expected to pay for their health care if they go into hospital, however much it may cost. However, as we have heard, they do not always do so. The concept that paying £200 will get people free access to health care is something that one can imagine marketing overseas: “Come to Britain and get free health care for £200”. The US would never offer a deal like that.
	There are many questions to which we need answers. What will that £200 cover? Will people get complete cover for that amount? Will people who stay here for year after year and who work here, pay their taxes and pay their national insurance have to pay £200 a year on top of everything that they already pay? I am pleased that there is a slight discount for students, but currently they do not pay anything towards their health care. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at that issue and, at the very least, offer a larger reduction.
	Various comments have been made by Members on both sides of the Chamber about the benefits that we receive from our higher education and further education sectors. English language schools are a big employer in my area and in many others. I am pleased that the Government have clamped down on bogus colleges. None of us wants to make it easy for people who are actively cheating the system to get away with it. However, further restrictions will be even more damaging and will send a message to the rest of the world that we are closed for business.
	I was therefore horrified earlier today when the shadow Home Secretary called for stronger checks on short-term student visitor visas, with no serious evidence that they are a massive problem. I contacted one of the English
	language schools in my constituency, Studio Cambridge. Its managing director, Malcolm Mottram, said in response to the shadow Home Secretary’s comments that
	“any further visa restrictions will be seen as Britain closing its doors—even to the brightest and the best—even more tightly.”
	I urge the Opposition not to progress that policy any further because I do not want my constituents to be damaged in that way. People are already being driven overseas to Ireland, the US, Australia and South Africa. Please do not make it any worse.
	There are areas where I think the Bill should go further. I would like to see a system that ensures that we get decisions right the first time. That is the key that would unlock this whole problem. However, that is probably not something that can be written into a clause and slid into the Bill.
	I would like a commitment to end the routine detention of children for immigration purposes to be written into the Bill. It is a disgrace that the last Government held thousands of young people. We have stopped that and we should ensure that that legacy continues by writing it into the law so that it never happens again.
	I hope that the Minister will consider two other matters. First, people whose children do not share their surname often have to produce a huge amount of paperwork, including birth and marriage certificates, when they come into the country to show that they are allowed to travel with their child. That is a huge burden and I hope that the Minister will consider the options. Legislation may be required so that children’s passports are updated to include the names of the people with whom they may travel. That would make a big difference to a particular set of people and would allow immigration officers to focus on the real problems.
	Lastly, as the Minister and I have discussed on a number of occasions, we could finally close a number of loopholes left in the law by the previous Government. In particular, some children born to unmarried British fathers before 2006 are deprived of citizenship. They would be allowed citizenship if their fathers had been married or if they had been born after 2006, so this is a clear anomaly and I think the Minister accepts that. His predecessor certainly did, and the Bill could be used as a vehicle to correct it. It seems that the Bill will receive a Second Reading, so I look forward to its being examined in Committee and substantially improved.

Stephen Phillips: It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to make a short contribution.
	One way in which I have found the debate disappointing is that I had thought we had moved on and divorced the question of race from the question of immigration. There were a number of contributions from Opposition Members that seemed not to have moved on at all, in particular those from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). It is a great shame that we continue to have a debate about immigration in which race plays such a large part. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) gave good reasons why race is no longer tied to immigration, and it is immigration we are talking about today, in particular unlawful or illegal immigration. We should be discussing that and nothing else.

Mark Reckless: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his comment. I wonder if I might distinguish the remarks by the right hon. Member for Tottenham to the extent that he referred to a bricklayer he had met. He told a story that I thought at least showed that he began to understand that what was leading to the loss of votes for Labour was economic competition, which the bricklayer faced, rather than race.

Stephen Phillips: I am grateful for that intervention, and I am sure that when the right hon. Member for Tottenham has finished his private conversation, he will read it in Hansard in due course.
	The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington referred to the 1905 royal commission on alien immigration. During the course of that commission, as she will know, one of the larger pieces of evidence was given by the then Member for Stepney, Major Evans Gordon. He had written a book two years before the royal commission, and in the preface he wrote:
	“The Alien Immigrant has been the subject of prolonged and bitter controversy, in which both sides have been guilty of some exaggeration. On the one hand, there are those who uphold the newcomers as an unmixed advantage in this country; on the other, there are many who denounce their advent as an unmitigated evil.”
	I have to say to Opposition Members that that is a debate from which we have moved on. There is no doubt, in 2013, that we have welcomed those who have come to this country to benefit the United Kingdom, and that we have always welcomed those who have had to come here as a result of threats to their health and safety because of events in their home countries.
	It is impossible to be a constituency MP in 2013 without those we represent, on whichever side of the House we sit, talking extensively about immigration. They do so because of the damning record of the previous Government, who effectively had open borders and let 3 million people into this country. Three times as many people entered this country between 1997 and 2010 as came here between the Conquest and 1950. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members would stop shouting and actually listen to me and their constituents, they would learn why this is such an important issue. It is so important because of the pressure it has put on public services and because of the way the people of this country have reacted to that open border immigration policy, which has resulted in much of the tolerance for which this country is famed going out of the window. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) did not mean that and will withdraw the comment.

Fiona Mactaggart: I apologise to you and the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: But you do withdraw it?

Fiona Mactaggart: Of course I do, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Stephen Phillips: The hon. Lady has a reputation for robust debate. I did not hear what she said, but I am grateful—[Interruption.] I will not ask her to repeat it. Indeed, it is quite unusual in this House not to hear what she has to say from a sedentary position. Be that as it may, when the Government took office in 2010,
	immigration was an issue that we all knew—having fought the general election—needed to be tackled. The Government have in part attempted to tackle it through secondary legislation, but not always effectively, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) pointed out. It was therefore clear to many Members—certainly Conservative Members—that primary legislation was needed, and it is to be greatly welcomed that the Government have brought forward this Bill to attempt to deal with many of the problems that the broken immigration system we inherited suffers from.
	What are the problems and how can they be described? There are two principal problems. The first is the complexity of the regime and the lucrative industry that has grown up among immigration practitioners, which makes a mockery of both common sense and the law. Most importantly, that has resulted in constituents of Members from across the House paying large fees to achieve precisely nothing in terms of immigration advice. The second problem is that in the minds of many people overseas, this country has become a soft touch and an easy immigration route into the European Union. Even worse, it has become that in the minds of its own citizens —the very people who sent us here to represent their interests. Those of us who have pushed the Government in this area know that those issues must be tackled, which is what the Home Secretary and her team intend to do with this excellent Bill.
	I will turn briefly to the Bill, but before that—if I may in the time available, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will make a few other comments. As I have said, tough action was necessary and I am pleased that we are seeing that in the Bill. Of course we want to welcome the brightest and best people to this country—we should always recognise that—and we want all that they offer to our economy and society. We want to recognise the contribution of many of those who have come here in the past and who run our NHS, as the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington observed, and other public services, and who have given so much to this country. It is interesting, however—we did not hear this point from the hon. Lady or any Opposition Member—that it is those who have come to this country during the past 30 years who most resent the open-door immigration policy pursued by the previous Government. That policy saw a number of people come into this country that was equivalent to the population of a major city such as Birmingham.
	What does the Bill do and what must we welcome? The Opposition seem to welcome it since, as I understand it, they are not going to divide the House on Second Reading. First, we all know that the appeal system is not only abused but is broken and not fit for purpose. Unmeritorious appeals are used to delay, obfuscate and prevent that which common sense decrees, where people are here unlawfully. All the provisions in the Bill are therefore to be welcomed.
	Why on earth—before the Home Secretary rose to explain I suspect few of us knew this—do we currently have a system in which decisions on immigration status and removal are made separately? Are we really so stupid that we think those who come here illegally will always voluntarily leave without a removal decision? If we have been so foolish in the past, thank goodness we are no longer.
	Why did the previous Government countenance a system that permitted bail to be applied for again and again by those to be deported, so that they could abscond? Why are abusive bail applications made day in, day out, which tie up immigration judges, and as a result lead to long periods during which those who have legitimate rights of appeal are denied a hearing in court? What on earth—I will not echo all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton—were the courts doing in the past in interpreting article 8 of the European convention on human rights in a way that made a mockery of common sense and immigration policy, as enshrined in law and passed by this House? This is a good Bill. It is necessary, as those on the Opposition Front Benches recognise, and has certainly not been brought forward in haste. If the House divides I will vote to give the Bill a Second Reading. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members, wherever in the House they sit, will do the same.

David Hanson: As usual, we have a had a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate on a serious and complex issue. Even in this complex and differential issue, there are areas of agreement. We agree that the immigration system should work well, and that it has not done so and does not do so now. My hon. Friends the Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned that, as did the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).
	We accept that we need effective border checks to stop illegal immigrants from entering at source—Members on both sides of the House agree on that. We need to identify overstayers and take action in the interests of the whole country. As the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) has said, we need to ensure that we deport at the end of their sentences foreign-based prisoners who have committed offences.
	I recognise that there is a benefit to immigration, as does the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and, in part, the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). Hon. Members spoke of the benefits of tourism. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, and even—dare I say it?—the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), said that there has been and is a need to bring skills to help create wealth in this country. We need to ensure we maximise the wealth genuine students can bring, as the hon. Member for Cambridge has said. We also need to maximise the good will they feel about the UK when they leave.
	I was struck by the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who spoke of the cultural benefits and pointed to the strong support in her community for many cultural changes.
	Hon. Members even appear to agree on—dare I say it?—ad vans. I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), for his strong intervention in the past 48 hours. According to the Evening Standard, it was the Liberals what did it. I would be grateful for confirmation of that in due course.

Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was extraordinary that the shadow Home Secretary devoted the greater part of her speech to a discussion about an advertising van? Is that matter so profoundly important to the interests of this country?

David Hanson: I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but if he reads the record, he will see that my right hon. Friend devoted the bulk of her speech to positive measures, which I will talk about at the end of my speech.
	We need to deal with this complex issue in a measured way. We do not need to ramp up the rhetoric—I was struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) to that effect. No one is saying that immigration is easy. It was complex for Labour in government and mistakes were made. It will be complex for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in government. However, when I look at the Bill, I ask whether it achieves any worthy objectives, and whether it develops and deals with the concerns of the EU, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) because of the pressures he faces in his constituency. Does it deal with the problem in a way that does not increase tensions, which Labour Members mentioned? That is what we need to test in detail when we deal with the Bill in Committee.
	Let us look at the Bill in detail. Part 1 deals with removals. The Opposition have supported that principle and will support it again, so I do not wish to deal with it now, but part 2 has generated the most discussion in the House today. My hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Lewisham East, for Sheffield Central, for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), made extremely valid points on the implications of part 2. I happen to believe—the Opposition will test this in Committee—that the right of appeal is a fundamental tenet of British values. We need to deal in Committee with the fact that we are removing it—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary says we are not removing the right of appeal. We are giving the right of administrative review, but we are not currently giving a right of appeal. If that is so important for the Home Secretary, I should tell her, as Opposition Members have, that approximately 50% of appeals are currently successful. If part 2 stands as drafted, without clarity of examination, detailed discussion and the real concerns of my hon. Friends being reflected by Members in the Committee, what will happen to the 50% whose appeals are currently upheld? It suggests that they will no longer be upheld. That is an issue that we want to look at in detail in Committee to ensure that the provisions will work effectively, but we will also want to return to the real concerns expressed by my hon. Friends.
	The provisions on landlords were supported by the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell), for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Poole (Mr Syms). We do not have an objection in principle, because we have already supported similar measures on employment. But concerns were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East and the hon. Member for Brent Central on bureaucracy, on changes in immigration status during the course of a tenancy and the costs to landlords of implementing the policy. While the principle
	may be good, the Committee will need to examine in detail how the policy will work in practice. The concerns of the landlords themselves, and of hon. Members on both sides of the House, will need to be considered in detail during the passage of the Bill.
	Nor do we oppose the health charge in principle. It was supported by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), but my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) made some very pertinent observations on it, not least of which was that health is devolved in Scotland, as it is in my area in Wales and in Northern Ireland, but we have had no clarity from the Government about how any charge raised will be distributed, whether it will go to the Consolidated Fund or to the health service or to regional Administrations. We will need to test that in Committee.
	The driving licence provisions will enshrine in law what the Labour Government did. I still think that someone who is here illegally is not going to worry too much about not having a driving licence, but we can test that idea in Committee. Sham marriages, enforcement of borders, biometrics and bank accounts are all issues that we should look at in Committee and may potentially support. Whatever the outcome of the vote tonight—if there is one—we will seek to amend parts 2 and 3 in Committee.
	I have not yet mentioned the issues that the Bill does not deal with. Opposition Members have recognised that immigration is an economic issue, but right hon. and hon. Government Members made no positive suggestions as to how we could tackle the issues of European immigration that are having an impact on labour market issues. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary signalled that Labour will table amendments, which we hope will be accepted, to make it illegal for recruitment agencies to target and recruit only foreign workers; to make it illegal for employers to deliberately run shifts only for foreign workers; to increase civil penalties to up to £50,000 for not paying the minimum wage—which, by the way, the Conservatives opposed in the first place; and to treble the fine for employing foreign workers illegally.
	As my right hon. Friend said, and in answer to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), we will also table amendments to ensure that the aspirations of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition are put into play on the question of EU apprenticeships—

James Clappison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

David Hanson: I cannot give way now because of the lack of time. The points that the hon. Gentleman has made are worthy of debate, and I assure him that we will have an opportunity to discuss the issue of apprenticeships linked to foreign employment after we have tabled our amendments.
	We need to look at banning unsuitable accommodation from being used as tied housing to offset the minimum wage; at giving local councils powers to enforce the minimum wage; at extending the Gangmasters Licensing Authority; at changing tier 2 regulations to ensure that companies take on apprentices; and at setting higher and minimum fines for employing illegal migrant workers.
	Those proposals are clear blue water between the Opposition and the Conservative party. It will never ever bring forward measures to ensure labour market regulation of that sort. I was here when it voted against the minimum wage and other measures to improve workers’ conditions. This is about fairness, and we will table amendments to test whether the Government are serious about those matters.
	The Government’s record is one of reduced border controls, reduced numbers of foreign criminals being deported, reduced numbers of people being fined for employing illegal immigrants and just two prosecutions over the minimum wage. There is a real difference between the Opposition and the Government. The Opposition will give the Bill a Second Reading today, but we will table amendments in Committee to deal with its inequities.

Mark Harper: In the limited time available—the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) could not help taking slightly more than half the time left—I will do my best to deal with as many of the points raised as I can. I welcome the contributions from Members on both sides of the House in what has been a good debate. I listened carefully and shall try to deal with the main issues.
	Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, one would never know that Labour left behind a legacy of 450,000 asylum cases, border checks that were frequently relaxed to deal with queues and out-of-control net migration—and the latter was not just from eastern European countries; under Labour, twice as many people arrived from outside the EU as from within it—and of course it was that record which made our constituents rightly concerned about the issue, as many of my hon. Friends said.
	The Government are firmly on the side of the vast majority of law-abiding migrants who play by the rules and contribute much to our society. We have a proud history of lawful migration, and this Government will continue to welcome the best and brightest to the country—

Pete Wishart: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: No, I want to deal with some of the points. I listened to the debate, and if the hon. Gentleman will give me the opportunity, I will deal with the points raised.
	The Government will continue to welcome the best and the brightest, be they skilled workers, the number of which is increasing, or students going to our universities, whose number is also increasing. For those who have overstayed their visa or were never here lawfully in the first place, however, there must be consequences for unlawful behaviour.

Pete Wishart: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: No, let me make some progress.
	We always prefer migrants who have had an application refused or who have overstayed to do the right thing and leave the UK under their own steam, and we will promote that compliant behaviour, but the Government want to put the law squarely on the side of people who respect the law, not those who break it. The Bill will
	deliver several important reforms to do that, cutting the number of immigration appeal rights, enabling us to require foreign criminals—not migrants in general—to leave the UK before appealing, ending the abuse of article 8 and introducing important measures to prevent illegal migrants from accessing services or the labour market.

Pete Wishart: rose—

Mark Harper: Despite what the right hon. Member for Delyn says, we are toughening up controls on employers and putting in place measures to collect fines more effectively. Together, these reforms are incredibly valuable.

Pete Wishart: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has made his point—he wants to get in—but it is up to the Minister to give way, and quite obviously he wants to make some progress.

Mark Harper: I am trying to do justice to the many Members who spoke in the debate, including the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
	I particularly enjoyed the remarks from my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Crawley (Henry Smith), all of whose constituencies I have had the opportunity to visit in my current role, and the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), from whom I am sure I will receive an invitation in due course.
	The right hon. Member for Delyn is right about the issues that we will not have a chance to debate in the remaining seven minutes; I want us to have a good debate in Committee and to go through the issues in detail, and I am confident that when we lay out our aims, we will take Members with us, having first tested their concerns. We want the Bill to leave Committee and this House in good shape. As Members will know from my previous roles and challenges, I do not think we should leave it to the other place to put Bills in good shape. I want to ensure it leaves this House in good shape, and I look forward to the debate in Committee to do so.
	In the time remaining, I shall try to deal with some of the issues raised. A number of Members raised important points about the proposals on health. To be clear; we are not talking about denying access to health care. We are talking about making sure that those who have no right to free health care have to make a contribution towards it. One of the points raised by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) was about public health and access to health for HIV treatment. I intervened on her to say that public health access will still be available for free. What I did not remember at the time was that this Government abolished treatment charges for HIV for overseas visitors exactly to protect the sorts of public health concerns she raised.
	We are talking about making sure people pay a fair share. For those temporary migrants coming to Britain either to work or to study, we will collect the money before they come into the UK. It will go into the Consolidated Fund, and it is well above my pay grade, Mr Deputy Speaker, to tell colleagues in the Treasury how to do
	public spending. But if money is then distributed, any funds that go to the NHS in England will of course be distributed to the devolved Administrations in the usual way according to the Barnett consequentials. I hope that that is clear. We are not proposing to change the way in which the devolved Administrations can charge under the overseas visitors arrangements. Those aspects of charging are of course devolved. We will talk to the devolved administrations to make sure that there are no unforeseen consequences from different parts of the UK having different regimes for visitor charging.
	As I said earlier in response to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), these are significant sums of money. She asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary how much we thought was not collected from health tourists. In the report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health published today, we say that we think that between £20 million and £100 million is the cost of deliberate health tourism for urgent treatment and between £50 million and £200 million for regular visitors taking advantage. Clearly there is a range, but this is an independent report that has been peer-reviewed and it is the best information we have. The hon. Lady is right; it is not a massive proportion of the overall NHS budget but £500 million that we are not collecting is a significant sum and it would make a real difference if we were able to collect it.
	The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), made some points about landlords, and we will test those issues in Committee. He also referred to e-Borders. He deserves a reasonable reply since he shared the blame around with the previous Government. We do already collect a significant amount of information on those coming into Britain and those leaving and we are working on improving that. I know that he will continue to question my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself when we appear in front of his Committee.
	The hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) and I do not always agree, but she made an important point about refugees. The reason why I think it is important to deal with people who have no right to be in Britain is that I want Britain to continue to be a welcoming place for those genuinely fleeing persecution. I fundamentally believe that we will only carry the public with us and have the public support a system where we protect genuine refugees—those fleeing persecution—if where we decide someone does not need our protection, and an independent judge does not think they need protection, those people leave the UK. By the way, we are not removing appeal rights for those where there is a fundamental right involved. If they abuse our hospitality by trying every trick in the book to stay here, they are damaging the interests of genuine migrants. It is our duty to make sure we do that.

Pete Wishart: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: I do not have time to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s points.
	There were many issues around appeal. Administrative review is a better way to deal with caseworking errors than forcing someone through the appeals system. I also listened very carefully to the genuine concerns raised about landlords. There will be a chance in Committee
	to deal with the practical implications of that. We have thought through the issues that colleagues have raised and we will be able to deal adequately with them in Committee and take colleagues with us. If there are things that we have not thought about, we can deal with those. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) dealt with that issue very well.
	I am looking forward to debating the issues in Committee. The Bill continues our reforms of the immigration system, and it will ensure that the public’s expectations of a fair system are delivered. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 303, Noes 18.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

Immigration Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Immigration Bill:
	Committal
	(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 19 November 2013.
	(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

deferred divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Nicky Morgan relating to the Draft Budget 2014 and the Motion in the name of Mr David Gauke relating to Value Added Tax.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

immigration Bill (money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Immigration Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
	(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State; and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

Immigration Bill (ways and means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Immigration Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
	(1) the imposition of an immigration health charge;
	(2) the charging of fees in respect of the exercise of functions in connection with
	immigration or nationality; and
	(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

European union documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Draft Budget 2014

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. SEC (2013) 370, a Statement of estimates of the Commission for 2014 (Preparation of the 2014 Draft Budget); agrees with the Government that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, it is essential that the European Union budget reflects the consolidation efforts of Member States to bring deficit and debt onto a more sustainable path; agrees that the Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF) agreement secured by the Prime Minister at the February European Council represents a good deal for taxpayers, delivering
	an unprecedented real-terms reduction of €35 billion on the current period in the seven year payment ceilings to €908.4 billion and a real-terms reduction of over three per cent in payment appropriations, and protecting the UK rebate; welcomes the fact that the 2014 Draft Budget respects the MFF agreement; notes that the Commission’s proposal sees a cash reduction in payments of around €4.5 billion compared to the current budget for 2013; and calls on the Government to continue its efforts to limit the size of the Budget by pressing for further savings, particularly in administration, in order to get the best deal for UK taxpayers.
	—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Value Added Tax

That the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 2013 (S.I., 2013, No. 1897), dated 30 July 2013, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 July, be approved.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

European Public Prosecutor’s Office

[Relevant document: Fifteenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-xv.]

James Brokenshire: I beg to move,
	That this House considers that the Draft Regulation on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) (European Union Document No. 12558/13 and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter One of the Fifteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xv); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.
	It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in your place for this debate and to serve under your chairmanship this evening.
	In July the European Commission published a proposal for the establishment of a European public prosecutor’s office—an EPPO. It is the Commission’s answer to a problem known as
	“fraud against the Union’s financial interests”.
	The EPPO proposal was published alongside a parallel legislative measure to reform the existing EU Agency Eurojust. These two proposals, the EPPO and Eurojust, will together be the subject of a separate debate in a week’s time as part of the so-called Lidington arrangements. I look forward to it, following my letters to the Chairs of the relevant Committees yesterday with the Government’s recommendation that the UK should not opt in to the new Eurojust proposal at the outset of negotiations, but should actively consider its position following a thorough review of the final agreed text.
	The purpose of the debate is specifically for the House to decide whether the Commission’s EPPO proposal breaches the principle of subsidiarity, and that is what we should focus on tonight. I recognise that I am in an unusual position tonight in moving a motion on a course of action to be taken by the House, not the Government. I am aware, too, that the issue of who should move a motion in a subsidiarity debate such as this is a matter that the Procedure Committee has examined and on which the Government have responded. Although there may be differences of view over the procedure, I hope we can agree on the substance of the debate.
	It is the shared view of both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Government that the EPPO proposal does indeed breach the principle of subsidiarity. If the whole House agrees, it can, under the EU treaties, send a democratic and political signal to the presidents of the European Commission, Council and Parliament in the form of a reasoned opinion to that effect. Moreover, in this case, if one quarter of the votes allocated to national Parliaments are cast, the so-called yellow card would be triggered meaning that the Commission would be obliged to review its proposal.
	To update the House on how matters stand, both chambers of the Dutch Parliament, the Hungarian National Assembly and the Czech Senate have already taken this step, and others are actively considering it. This is a real opportunity for all national Parliaments to exercise, as democratic representatives, their views on what the Commission has proposed.
	Before I say more about the reasoned opinion process, let me summarise the Government’s view on the EPPO proposal. The House will be aware of our long-standing position in the coalition agreement not to participate in the establishment of any EPPO, and the details of the proposal serve only to reinforce that position. While of course fraud must be tackled at all levels, including when it involves funds that form part of the EU budget, we do not agree that the establishment of a European public prosecutor’s office is the right approach.
	The Commission’s proposal would establish a new supranational EU body with responsibility for criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union, as well as so-called ancillary offences within participating member states. The EPPO would exercise the function of a prosecutor within the courts of the participating member states for these offences and instruct their national authorities over the conduct of investigations.
	This proposal is unnecessary, unsubstantiated and unwelcome. In the Government’s view, the best way to tackle EU fraud is through prevention. The UK has a zero-tolerance approach to fraud, with robust management controls and payment systems in place that seek to prevent incidences of EU fraud. Additionally we should continue efforts already happening to strengthen the current system.
	For example, reforms to the European Anti-Fraud Office—OLAF—are currently being introduced to improve information exchange between OLAF and national authorities, and to improve OLAF’s own internal quality control. Indeed, a new regulation governing the work of OLAF entered into force only on 1 October 2013. These changes need time to be implemented fully before any further action is contemplated. Against that background, one of the many criticisms we have of the EPPO proposal is that the subsidiarity principle has not been met.
	Without getting into too much technicality and legalese, the principle of subsidiarity means that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizens whom they affect, and that the European Union should act only when outcomes can be better achieved at European Union level. It is important to note that subsidiarity is different from the principle of proportionality, under which any action taken by the European Union should not exceed what is necessary to achieve the stated objectives.
	Under the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaties, the Commission must demonstrate that the objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved at member state level—the first limb of the test—and then, that the objectives of the proposal can be better achieved at EU-level by reason of their scale and effects, which is the second limb and so-called EU added-value test. There is a requirement for the Commission to include a detailed statement in all legislative proposals on compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and some assessment of its financial impact. This detailed statement should be
	“substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative indicators”.
	In the Government’s view, the Commission has not presented a convincing case, and we do not believe that the principle of subsidiarity has been met. The Commission has not allowed time for current reforms to take effect, nor has it adequately considered options to strengthen
	the current system. For example, it has not considered enhanced incentives or other options for reform at regional or national level in any detail or in a rigorous manner, and it has not demonstrated what value an EPPO would add. We should recall that the relevant legal base in the treaties—article 86 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—says that an EPPO “may” be established. The treaties do not say it “shall” be created. The Commission has not, in our view, provided robust evidence to justify the creation of a supranational body with extensive and harmonised powers.
	As I have said, under the treaties national Parliaments have the opportunity to put forward a reasoned opinion when they do not consider that a proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity.

Alan Beith: Since the Minister has just made a point about harmonised powers, may I remind him that one of the consequences of giving the EPPO the power to direct investigations would be to create a power for prosecutors that does not currently exist in England and Wales, although it does in Scotland? That perhaps illustrates the level of change that would be required to satisfy the idea of having a public prosecutor at European level.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, for highlighting the seriousness and significance of the European Commission’s proposal and why, in our view, it is not appropriate for the United Kingdom to opt in to the measure. As I have indicated, we made that abundantly clear in the coalition agreement in advance of the proposals being published. I am sure that we will examine in detail the impact of the Commission’s published measure in our debate next week on the in-principle decision as to whether the UK should opt in. That is the right avenue for exploring the detailed issues, whereas today is about subsidiarity. However, I take his points seriously.
	Although there have been a number of reasoned opinions since the opportunity to provide them came into effect, there has only been one occasion on which the yellow card threshold has been reached. That was on a Commission proposal about the posting of workers and the right to take collective action, also known as Monti II. In that case, the Commission withdrew the proposal fully, even though it maintained that the principle of subsidiarity had been met. It conceded on the grounds that it was clear that there was no political will among member states and national Parliaments to take the proposal forward.
	The Monti II case highlights the fact that the continuing use of the reasoned opinion procedure and resulting yellow cards represents a powerful political signal and an important way for national Parliaments to intervene directly in the EU’s functioning. Even when the yellow card threshold has not been met, the views of national Parliaments have been influential on a wide range of issues, as member states have used reasoned opinions to support their negotiating positions. They have often secured amendments on the salient issues on the back of them.
	Achieving the threshold requires a great deal of co-ordination between national Parliaments. I am sure the European Scrutiny Committee and other interested
	parties in Parliament, in both this House and the other place, are making best use of their contacts with other national Parliaments in that regard. I look forward to hearing the debate and urge the House to support this important motion.

Diana Johnson: This is the first time that I have spoken while you have been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate you on your appointment. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this evening.
	I start by thanking the Minister for setting out the Government’s approach to the draft regulation. There is considerable history to the idea of an EPPO. Back in 2002, the European Scrutiny Committee scrutinised the 2001 Green Paper in which the European Commission first proposed the idea of establishing the EPPO. It found that the EPPO was unnecessary, particularly given the existence of Eurojust. It also identified a number of concerns, such as the combination of prosecution and investigative functions; the power of the EPPO to commit a person for trial and determine the location of that trial; the creation of differing standards of criminal responsibility for fraud depending on whether it related to the Community’s financial interests; the lack of democratic accountability for the prosecution function; the breach of the subsidiarity principle; and the dilution of member states’ responsibility for the prosecution of fraud.
	The prospect of a specialist EU prosecution authority has been raised again since then and was one of a range of initiatives that the Commission considered in 2011. Again, the European Scrutiny Committee investigated those initiatives. In 2011 the Committee echoed its 2002 concerns and cautioned against the “inappropriate and unacceptable” use of national criminal justice systems in acting against crimes against EU finances.
	The Opposition believe that this proposal seeks to address a real problem. Chapter 1 of the 15th report of the European Scrutiny Committee, to which the motion refers, makes it clear that the levels of suspected fraud against the EU budget are estimated by the Commission to have been around €500 million, or £425 million, in each of the last three years. That is clearly unacceptable and should be condemned by all Members of the House. We should of course seek new ways to ensure that that fraud, which costs us all as British taxpayers, can be stopped and the perpetrators are brought to justice.
	However, as we repeatedly made clear when we were in government, we do not believe that an EPPO is the solution to these problems. We agree with the European Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation that the EPPO proposal breaches the subsidiarity principle and that a national-level approach, supported by existing EU mechanisms, would be more appropriate.
	Although the Labour Government signed the Lisbon treaty, which enables the creation of an EPPO, we argued in government that we were consistently against the formation of the office and put in place measures to “double lock” against its creation. The double lock we secured ensured, first, that the UK would have to opt in; and secondly, that even if a future Government were to opt in, they would still need unanimity, which is retained for any decision to establish a prosecutor or
	extend its powers. As the Lord President of the Council at the time, the noble Baroness Ashton of Upholland, made clear in a debate in 2008:
	“We have secured legally watertight safeguards in the treaty against any move towards a European public prosecutor or subsequently, and just as important, towards extending that prosecutor’s role. It is what we would call a double lock.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. 454.]
	Therefore, in government we put in place a system in which an opt-in procedure applies. Parliament could let its views be known and the Government could put forward their proposals. The Government would then, if they so chose—we always believed this to be very unlikely—have the discussions and determine by unanimity if they did not wish to participate.
	We agreed with the Minister when he told the European Scrutiny Committee the following: that the creation of an EPPO is not the appropriate response to tackling EU fraud; that for participating member states the proposal will transfer responsibility for tackling fraud against the EU budget away from national-level decision making and towards a supranational authority whose European delegated prosecutors would have to prioritise EU fraud above other crime at a national level; that it is a flawed approach for member states not to be able to determine their national priorities, and the consequent use of resources, in tackling crime; that the EPPO would disrupt the current system for tackling fraud against the EU budget at a time where the Commission has reported two consecutive years of decrease in fraudulent and other irregularities affecting the EU budget and their estimated financial impact; that the proposed EPPO system would result in a duplication of established national-level efforts, including specific bodies, to protect member states and EU financial interests, including work against organised crime; that the best way to tackle fraud is through prevention, as reflected in the UK’s zero-tolerance approach to all fraud, which it takes “extremely seriously” and which has resulted in low levels of fraud, and by using robust management controls and payment systems and requiring all agencies with responsibility for distributing EU funds to have processes in place to monitor and report fraud; and that creation of the office would cause a shift from prevention to reaction after crimes have been committed, as it would make each member state less responsible for anti-fraud work at a national level
	We agree with the Government on the principle that it would be wrong to proceed with an EPPO, and it is refreshing to see them for once getting something right on Europe. For far too long we have had the Government’s laboured decisions on whether they would be part of European co-operation on crime and justice, saying they want to opt out and then opt back in. That has led the Home Secretary to this untried strategy which risks harming effective police action in all our communities.
	It has appeared for some time that the Government have been putting internal party management and coalition horse-trading ahead of crime fighting and the interests of victims. As the Leader of the Opposition made clear earlier this year, the Government’s strategy on Europe has not been to sort out the crisis of growth, it has not been to tackle youth unemployment, and it has had nothing to do with the national interest—it has all been about managing the divisions in the Conservative party. This type of party management as our European policy
	is not good for the country; nor will it keep the Minister’s party quiet. On Europe, the Government should be acting now to deal with the issues that really matter to people rather than navel-gazing to keep the coalition parties happy. The Government should be looking, for example, at how the UK in Europe can stop the exploitation of migrant workers and at reforms at the EU level so that family benefits such as child tax credit and child benefit are not sent abroad.
	We agree with the Government on the motion. However, it is crucial that they start to take European issues seriously rather than simply shying away from anything with the word “Europe” in it. They must begin to come forward with genuine options for developing greater integration to stop EU fraud, and they must make it clear how they expect the UK to play its part as an EU member state in co-operating as closely as possible on cross-border crime, particularly drug trafficking, people trafficking and international fraud, rather than pursuing the Home Secretary’s untested and risky approach.

Martin Horwood: I add my congratulations to you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	It is important that we retain some sense of proportion in this debate. We are, after all, discussing an idea which, in practice, would tackle the simple issue of crime against the EU, particularly fraud against the EU budget. While I welcome the Minister’s fairly practical approach, I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) doth protest a bit too much in painting such a cataclysmic picture of the complete collapse of the European criminal justice system were this to go ahead. That is completely out of proportion, and I think she is just trying to prove her Eurosceptic credentials. This is not quite the massive issue that some might imagine. I recognise, however, that there is a thin end of the wedge argument in that the proposal sets out a different principle in creating a new kind of European competence, albeit one already recognised in treaty. I also recognise the specific acknowledgement in the coalition agreement that Conservative Members, in particular, do not want to pursue such a solution to the problem.
	In this case, on balance, the Government are right in their interpretation of the subsidiarity principle. The Commission has not demonstrated that the proposed path has to be taken because nation states are incapable of tackling fraud against the EU budget, and it therefore fails the subsidiarity test as currently presented. There is an important role for pro-European Members of this Parliament and other Parliaments in applying the subsidiarity principle properly. We should not allow any kind of drift towards dealing at a European level with competencies that are really better exercised at a lower level.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

Martin Horwood: I am happy to give way to my friend on the Labour Benches.

Kelvin Hopkins: Yet again the hon. Gentleman talks about Europe rather than the European Union. Many of us love Europe in all sorts of ways but do not necessarily love the European Union.

Martin Horwood: I had picked up that impression from many hon. Members, but I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
	However, there is a problem. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North rightly said, it is estimated that there is a vast amount of fraud against the European budget—some €500 million a year—and that is unacceptable. National law enforcement against that is fragmented across the member states. While the UK may have a robust record on tackling it, that is not always true of all member states. In fact, only one in five of the cases transferred by the European anti-fraud office—OLAF—to the national prosecution authorities leads to a conviction, and those conviction rates vary considerably among member states. There is, therefore, a problem that needs to be tackled. I accept what the Minister has said about improvements to OLAF, but the European Commission and European Union authorities also need to take a more proactive stance against EU budget fraud. I do not think, however, that a European public prosecutor’s office is the solution at this stage.
	The Commission’s proposal has an additional problem, in that it suggests locating the EPPO in Eurojust, but that would seriously muddy the waters of the role of Eurojust, which is a very effective and important organisation. I am pleased that the coalition has agreed that, with certain reforms, we should opt into it. Eurojust is important in stimulating investigation and co-operation on judicial and prosecutorial matters. The impetus for it emerged after 9/11, when the importance of tackling cross-border terrorism was made very clear. It helps European authorities to tackle serious organised crime, people trafficking, drug trafficking, the smuggling of illegal immigrants, illicit trade in human organs, kidnapping, trafficking works of art and computer crime. The list goes on and on and it is a very good example of how European Union institutions help us to tackle cross-border crime in a way that would be impossible for 27 different countries trying to co-operate on a bilateral basis.
	To confuse the role of Eurojust, which is one of encouraging co-operation and stimulating investigations, with that of a prosecutorial authority would change the role of Eurojust and create an additional complication, which might, in the domestic political context, reduce support for opting back into Eurojust. Practically, politically and in principle, I think that locating the EPPO in Eurojust would be the wrong step to take.
	I will not detain the House any longer. The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s motion. The problem of serious fraud against the European budget needs to be tackled, but the proposal oversteps the mark in terms of the principle of subsidiarity, so I am happy to give my support to the Government tonight.

Kelvin Hopkins: May I add my congratulations to you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker? I am very pleased to see you in the Chair.
	I support the motion. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am pleased that we are winning an argument and making a point. It is good to see both Front Benchers in agreement and taking a robust stand on matters to do with the European Union.
	The ESC is concerned that, over time, the British legal system is being chipped away at by EU reform. The proposal would be another step away from our own legal system and rights. The legal system on the continent—this is particularly true of France—tends to combine prosecution and investigation, but our legal system is very different and follows a different route. It is very important that we retain our great legal traditions and our legal system, which I think works extremely well. Of course, we also do very well in investigating fraud compared with some other member states.
	I support what has been said by the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who spoke so well. I also apologise for missing the first part of the Minister’s speech because I was detained elsewhere. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say these few words on behalf of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Alan Beith: I would like to join the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) in giving credit where credit is due. This debate is taking place on the basis of the report and reasoned opinion of the European Scrutiny Committee. The Government agree with that reasoned opinion, but it is very much that of the Committee. In my capacity as Chairman of the Liaison Committee and the Justice Committee, I think that the European Scrutiny Committee is entitled to the credit. If there is something wrong with our procedure, it is that it does not fully recognise that process. However, the outcome is a happy one because pretty well everybody agrees that the reasoned opinion is correct, and it accords with the Government’s view.
	The proposal for a European public prosecutor offends against the subsidiarity principle. One of its primary objectives is to strengthen the protection of the European Union’s financial interests. That is a perfectly reasonable objective to pursue, but it does not have to be achieved through the creation of a European public prosecutor. Indeed, it would not necessarily be best achieved in that way. The other limb of the general argument in favour of the European public prosecutor is that it is a further development of the area of justice. That provides the hint that subsidiarity is in danger of going out the window.
	There are many ways in which the European Union could improve how it deals with fraud. If national Governments fail to take the actions that they should take, they should be shamed into doing so. We also have to be a little careful about using percentage figures on the success of prosecutions. There is considerable danger if anybody thinks that the target of a justice system is to have 100% success in prosecutions. Courts will sometimes find people not guilty because the evidence has not been brought forward or sustained. The 100% target is a rather dangerous principle to import into this debate.
	It is often pointed out that the European Union could do a lot more to resist fraud if it designed its schemes and its disbursement of money in ways that lent themselves to fraud a great deal less. Nothing is fraud-proof, but schemes can be designed that are less susceptible to fraud than many of those that have been developed over the years by European institutions.
	Many elements of the proposal offend against subsidiarity. The European public prosecutor would have investigative powers, search and seizure powers, and interception and surveillance powers. To have those powers in operation at a supranational level would be a pretty significant change.
	The proposal would take away the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in prosecuting decisions in matters relating to EU fraud. It would have a similar effect on the roles of the procurator fiscal and the Lord Advocate in Scotland. The proposal would ignore the deliberate separation of decisions on investigation from decisions to prosecute in England and Wales, which is a long-standing element of our system. We can argue about whether that barrier should be retained, but we should have that argument in the context of our legal system and not allow it to be forced on us by the introduction of the European public prosecutor.
	I am convinced that in the minds of some people, the creation of a European public prosecutor is a route to a prosecution role that goes wider than EU finances. I am not always tempted by slippery slope or Trojan horse arguments, but some of the same people have advanced the case for a prosecutor to deal with EU finances and a wider role for such an office.

Kelvin Hopkins: The right hon. Gentleman must accept that there has been constitution creep for decades in the European Union. Surely that is what we are trying to stop.

Alan Beith: There have also been many advances in the way in which European nations use the European Union to achieve highly desirable objectives, such as through co-operating to deal with international crime. An intrinsic problem with the way in which the European Union was constructed, which is quite understandable given the way in which it was constructed, is that there is a belief in the Commission that the way forward is always to create further powers and jurisdictions. We have created a system that has that element within it. However, those who worry about Britain’s membership of the European Union have a tendency to underestimate the benefits and the value that have been achieved through many of its processes.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) pointed out that there is a close relationship between this proposal and the issue of Eurojust. Unhelpfully, it would compromise the acceptability of Eurojust to many people if the European public prosecutor was located within Eurojust. There are other aspects of interrelationship between the two issues. I regard Eurojust as an extremely valuable institution that has many processes that are of great advantage to British citizens. It has an important role in the prevention and detection of crime against British citizens and British interests. But again, even within the Eurojust proposals that we will be looking at again shortly, the role of the national members of Eurojust in the Commission’s proposal to order investigative measures changes the relationship between law enforcement and prosecution that is so firmly a part of our system.
	There is, of course, another feature of the proposals that I am glad has not attracted the attendance of some of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches: if we went ahead with it, it would trigger a referendum. That
	might make it attractive to them to vote against the motion tonight, or whenever we have a deferred Division. I should not really tell them this, because it might inflame them in a way that I do not want. Basically, I think we all agree that establishing a European public prosecutor’s office is not the direction in which we ought to go and that it offends the principle of subsidiarity, as is extremely cogently argued in detail by the European Scrutiny Committee.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a huge pleasure to see you in the Chair this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is the first time I have had the opportunity to say, “Congratulations.” I congratulate you on your position.
	I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, so it is a pleasure to witness the report being debated and accepted on all sides of the House. It is also a pleasure to see other members of the Committee—the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). I am sure the Minister is delighted that unfortunately my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) cannot be here this evening, so I intend to fill in for him to a certain extent by taking the next 45 minutes of his life away from him. [Laughter.] No, I do not intend to detain the House for too long.
	It is obvious to all who have read the Committee’s report or listened to the speeches this evening that the creation of the European public prosecutor’s office would breach the principle of subsidiarity. In fact, it is so obvious that my good friend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has noticed that there is a breach. Blimey, it must be bad—if there is a breach that he can spot, most of us could drive a coach and horses through it. We should therefore be very aware of what the Committee is highlighting.
	The European Commission proposal to establish the European public prosecutor’s office has been around for quite some time. I can remember as a Member of the European Parliament being stuck in a debate in the early 2000s listening to a fantastic German lady, Diemut Theato, who I think was the head of OLAF for a short period of time and then my chair of the Committee of Budgetary Control, argue vociferously for the office of European public prosecutor and everything that goes with it. This new regulation, however, would create a slightly different beast—it has morphed even since then. This would be a new EU body with a head, the European public prosecutor, and at least four deputies, with powers to conduct investigations and prosecutions in member states against people suspected of crimes against the EU budget—fraud. I heard the Minister say that there will be a further debate next week and I look forward to speaking in it, if I am called. . However, if I may, I would like to spend a few seconds on what the proposal might mean.
	Each member state will have a representative of the EPPO, known as a European delegated prosecutor, who will be empowered to direct national investigative and prosecuting authorities when it comes to crime against the EU budget. There is an interesting question about what constitutes a crime against the EU budget and how that would be defined. They will have exclusive
	competence to investigate and prosecute suspected offences against the EU budget. The investigative measures include surveillance, search and seizure, and even the summoning of witnesses. These would be significant powers. The EPPO would also be able to act as prosecutor in national courts.
	The possible creation of the EPPO is enabled via the Lisbon Treaty, and I recognise the work of the previous Government to ensure that we were not swept up at that time. It can be created through this new regulation, but we are not bound by it: we can choose to opt in thanks to the justice and home affairs arrangement. However, the Lisbon treaty actually discusses the public prosecutor’s power being extended to other serious cross-border crime, such as computer crime, money laundering and a host of others. In itself, that could make the EPPO more powerful than even the FBI, and it would hold the power to investigate and prosecute in nation states. That looks like the creation of a federal European criminal justice agency, which is not something that anybody in Britain would like to see.
	The EPPO does not fulfil the “principle of subsidiarity”, by which
	“the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives…cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States”.
	As the Minister outlined, I am aware that this is possibly only the second time that the yellow card will be used, and member states have an eight-week opportunity—which closes this coming Monday, I am told—to use that yellow card. As a football referee, I very much like the yellow card and believe we should use it more often when it comes to European regulation.
	There are three aspects to why the European Scrutiny Committee says that the EPPO does not comply with subsidiarity, and I think they are worth highlighting. First, the European Commission has not adequately considered options for alternative means for improving the fight against fraud, such as preventive measures at the point EU funds are given out—that point was well made by the Chairman of the Justice Committee. Secondly, the Commission has not waited to see the impact of the proposed new directive on criminal offences and sanctions relating to fraud against the EU budget—indeed, I believe that that directive has not yet been properly agreed, so perhaps we are putting the cart before the horse on this occasion. Thirdly, the Commission used questionable data and flawed assumptions when assessing the proposal, such as unreliable convictions data from member states—it is questionable how much money the prosecutor would get back, and no one knows how the figure in the proposal was reached.
	When becoming Members of the European Parliament, all are given jobs—that is part of the deal—and being the most junior of the juniors when I got elected in 1999, I was given the job of rapporteur for OLAF. That came on the back of the fraud of the European Commission in 1999, and Wiseman’s report that said what should be done.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am most interested in the hon. Gentleman’s experience of the European Parliament. May I ask whether one is paid extra for these jobs?

Chris Heaton-Harris: If only that was the case. My wife questions the sanity of my move across to this place anyway. We were well rewarded for what we did; it paid exactly the same as for Members of Parliament
	at the time, but Members of the European Parliament now have their own salary, and pay a different tax rate on most occasions.
	OLAF came out of Wiseman’s report. It was mainly to investigate Commission fraud and crime, which was one of the things that brought down the European Commission in the first place. It also had plenty of powers to protect the EU’s financial interest. In the debate next week I intend to highlight what can be done in the reform of OLAF to allow us to prove to the European Commission that the whole new power grab of having a European public prosecutor’s office is not required. If the Commission used the powers and bodies it already has—already well funded and in general relatively well run—we would not be in this position in the first place. I wholeheartedly support the motion.

James Brokenshire: With the leave of the House, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. This has been a useful debate, and from what we have heard it is clear that the House supports the motion before us, and identifies that there is an issue of subsidiarity with the Commission’s proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office. As I said at the outset, this is a matter for Parliament and not the Government. Therefore, in the light of the mood of the House this evening, I hope that the European Scrutiny Committee will take this issue and work with other interested parties in Parliament, the House and the other place, and make best use of their contacts with other national Parliaments in that regard, given the interest and focus that I know are being directed to this proposal by Parliaments around the EU.
	The coalition agreement makes it clear that the UK Government will not participate in any European public prosecutors office. As we have heard from hon. Members, that is because a centralised European prosecutor with harmonised powers to initiate investigations and order investigative measures is incompatible with the division of responsibilities in the UK between law enforcement and prosecutors, and the role of the independent judiciary. In many ways, that reflects a number of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—the Chair of the Justice Committee—the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). May I say that the last of those is filling in for my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) admirably this evening in ensuring that the will and views of the European Scrutiny Committee are properly represented in the debate? I look forward to him standing in on future occasions.
	I want to underline and respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). I welcome the fact that
	she agrees with the Government’s analysis of subsidiarity as it applies to the European public prosecutors office measure. However, it will not surprise her that I take issue strongly with her suggestion that the Government do not take transnational and serious organised crime, and working with law enforcement agencies across the EU, very seriously in ensuring that public are properly protected against organised criminality that crosses borders. I will not detain the House because this is a matter for another day, but it is interesting that the Labour Government negotiated the right to exercise the 2014 block opt-out—she described the 2014 decision as an untested approach. From her comments, I can only assume that the previous Government had no intention of exercising that right and therefore of seeking to provide those protections—it was a sham.
	The hon. Lady highlighted protections in respect of the European prosecutors office—unanimity and the right to opt in—but it is important that the public have a say and a right to form a view in respect of such an important issue. That is why I welcome the fact that the Government have legislated to make any decision by a future Government to commit the UK to participating in the creation of the European public prosecutors office a matter that would require an Act of Parliament and—yes—a referendum under the European Union Act 2011.
	This has been a helpful debate and I welcome the views that have been expressed. We will monitor with close interest whether the threshold is triggered to issue the formal yellow card to the Commission. We will return to matters more broadly in relation to the European public prosecutors office and the relationship with Eurojust when we debate the formal opt-in decision motion, when we can examine those matters in further detail.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House considers that the Draft Regulation on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) (European Union Document No. 12558/13 and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter One of the Fifteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xv); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION (Committees)

Ordered,
	That the motion in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to the House of Commons Members’ Fund shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice of a motion has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Amber Rudd.)

GOVERNMENT SERVICES (WEBSITES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amber Rudd.)

Mark Garnier: I suspect that no hon. Member has got to their feet today and not congratulated you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I add my name to the great list of people who have congratulated you on your well earned election. I wish you the best of the luck in your years as Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to speak this evening on a subject that, while not of vital national importance, is one that causes annoyance in the everyday lives of many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members. It is so annoying that Elliott Webb, the morning show presenter on BBC Hereford and Worcester, has asked me to help to address it. He has received many complaints from listeners across the two counties. It is also an issue that our beloved institution the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has contacted all of us about in recent months.
	As we know, the Government provide many services to citizens via websites, including applying for new passports, paying congestion charges, booking MOT tests for cars, finding replacement birth certificates, applying for driving licences and a range of other services that can, in the modern age, be accessed by the majority of people through the internet. Some of the services are free, but many cost money. Generally speaking, the process is straightforward—follow the instructions, pay the charge, job done. However, to find the websites and access the services they need, the vast majority of people will use an internet search engine, and that is where the problem starts.
	If people use Google to search for “replacement passport”, they will get several pages of websites providing services for replacing their passport, but the proper official Government website will appear several places down the front page. Importantly, the official Government site will never appear in the shaded ad box at the top of the page, only in the fourth place as read by the consumer looking at a search engine result.

Andrew Bingham: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I also congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election. My constituent Barbara Bradbury alerted me to this very problem about the passport checking service that charges £49 for a service that is available for £8.75 at a local post office. This service had a .org web address, which gave it an air of legitimacy, resulting in my constituents, particularly elderly ones, falling for it and paying £49.

Mark Garnier: My hon. Friend expresses the nub of my argument, and I will make similar points during my speech. He is right to raise this issue on behalf of his constituent and she is not alone in such problems.

Jim Shannon: I have had examples of the very same thing happening to my constituents. They have followed the process on Google and used a service that cost money, but the Government do it for free. People are annoyed and angry when they find that
	they have paid for something that they did not need to pay for. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government should have warnings on their websites about those companies that charge for something that the Government do not charge for?

Mark Garnier: There are warnings out there, and I shall develop that point as I make my speech, but the hon. Gentleman is right. It is difficult for people to tell the difference between one type of website and another.

Damian Hinds: It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	There is a way of telling that a website is a Government website—it uses the suffix .gov.uk, but most people cannot be expected to know that kind of techie detail. Does my hon. Friend agree that such problems exist for private companies as well, and the problem is not just about access to Government sites? We need a labelling system on the internet that gives some weight to intellectual property and brand owners—the biggest brand in this country is the Government—so that people can be confident that when they see a certain symbol or read a certain word they are on a genuine website.

Mark Garnier: My hon. Friend suggests action that the internet search engines can take, and I shall develop that point if I may make progress with my speech, although the interventions have shown that this is a widespread issue that affects not only Government websites, but private websites. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raises the slightly alarming point that providers of services can be undermined by someone snaffling their place, as it were, and that is very bad for competition.
	These websites, having squeezed themselves in between the consumer and the Government website trying to provide the service, offer to provide a notional service—form filling—and then charge a premium to submit the form on the person’s behalf. BBC Hereford and Worcester has many such examples. Harry from Droitwich paid £49 for a website to fill in his passport form, only to discover that he still had to pay £72.50 for the actual cost of the passport. David from Kidderminster tried to apply for a driving licence online, filling in a form that he believed was his application, but the website just checked the information and sent him the typed-out completed form to send off to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and charged him £50 to do so. It did not even pay for the stamp! This website was a little more helpful, however, as it advertised a number that could be used to complain about how misleading the site was, but of course he discovered that it was a premium rate telephone number. Perhaps the worst example of abuse by intermediary websites is the case of a Worcestershire resident who texted me while I was being interviewed yesterday morning complaining that she had been charged £30 for a European health insurance card, which is available free from the NHS and which ensures that British citizens get access to health care throughout the EU.
	These misleading websites fall into two broad categories. The first are those that are deliberately misleading: websites that set out cynically to dupe the consumer into thinking that they are official Government websites.
	They look and feel like the website they seek to ape and they charge a premium for a service that is otherwise provided by the Government at a set rate. They win their so-called customers by winning the search engine optimisation game and achieving the top slot on the search engine results page—consumers naturally click on the top site, especially if its name suggests official status.

Damian Hinds: My hon. Friend is kind when he talks about their winning the top slot, because of course they pay for it, getting to the top of the search engine list by making the biggest pay-per-click bid multiplied by the biggest click-through rate—a game the Government should never get into, being funded only by taxpayers.

Mark Garnier: That is absolutely right, and again I shall be developing that point a little later, although the search engines are trying to help.
	From time to time, these deliberately misleading websites are scrutinised by the Advertising Standards Authority, and prosecutions have been pursued and won, which is a good thing. I understand that more will be done, and I am sure that the Minister will share with the House what measures are coming in due course.
	The second type of website is just as cynical, supposedly offering a service to help people fill in their forms. We have heard that the Post Office provides just such a service. For a fee of £8.75, it will check that a passport application form has been properly filled in and send in the application, together with the expired passport, to the Passport Office. This seems a perfectly reasonable fee, especially considering that it includes the cost of postage. What is less reasonable is the £49.50 charged to Harry from Droitwich for the same service, which did not include postage, and the case of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). These websites offer what they would argue is a value service, but its true value is of huge debate.
	Importantly, according to the House of Commons Library, there is nothing preventing a business from offering services that provide assistance with official processes, and if the services do little to speed up the process, the law does not make them illegal, even if they are utterly worthless. In my view, they are utterly pointless and simply seek to take advantage of consumers by putting themselves higher up the search page results than the official website. We are all caught out by this. We in the House of Commons, of all people, must be more aware of how Government websites work than anyone else, yet IPSA felt it necessary to warn us that the premiums being charged by the congestion charge intermediary sites were not reclaimable. In a bulletin to Members on 21 August, the No. 1 item read:
	“If you’re paying for your London congestion charge payment online, please make sure you are using only the official TfL website… Unofficial websites often levy an unnecessary administrative fee.”
	It should be obvious to all which site is a genuine Government site and which is a misleading attempt to take money from a consumer. As we have heard, a proper site will end with the gov.uk suffix, an ending reserved for genuine official Government websites. Similarly, the intermediary sites are required to carry a disclaimer
	saying that they are not official sites. They all seem to have them. Generally, they will be found right at the bottom of a fairly long page and in minute print. Despite that being obvious to the informed, and despite occasional awareness campaigns and rulings from judges on bogus sites, however, more and more people are being duped into using these unnecessary services.
	It is wholly wrong that people are misled this way for a number of reasons, not least because people on tightened budgets find themselves conned out of some of their increasingly hard-pressed reserves. I have great sympathy with the consumer. Whilst it may be obvious that there are ways of differentiating the bogus from the genuine website, why should we expect the consumer to miraculously know and understand all the subtleties of web addresses, suffixes and disclaimer protocols?
	The good news, as I alluded to earlier, is that the search engines broadly speaking agree with this. Google, in anticipation of this debate, sent me some advice on how it is already tackling the issue and it is worth sharing this with the House. Google has what it calls a “sale of free items policy”, which states that Google only allows the promotion of sites that charge for services associated with products or services that may be otherwise available for free as long as a number of disclosures are presented together prominently above the fold on the landing pages. I will share the four items it talked about.
	The first is that the site clearly states whether the advertiser is affiliated or not affiliated with the Government official source or free source; secondly, that the site discloses that the product, services or forms are available from the Government official source or free source either for free, where applicable, or at a lower cost than the advertiser charges; thirdly, that the site must describe the additional services offered that are available from the Government official source or free source—this is the value proposition—and that advertisers should not misrepresent the value that they add by highlighting features or services available from the official source for free; finally, that the ads and landing pages cannot promote services that provide little or no additional value to the user beyond the original official online automated application process.
	It is helpful that some of the search engines do have a clear policy but it is still the case that the consumer’s eye will inevitably be drawn to the top of the page where the paid-for ads appear and where the consumer may also be under the misapprehension that if it is in a paid-for ad slot, it must be an official website.
	What makes this so offensive is that the Government websites are already ours as a society. We as citizens have a stake in our Government. We as taxpayers already own these sites amongst us all. When one of these bogus service providers gets between the consumer and the website, they are getting in the way of something that is already ours by right. They are charging us for something we already own, for a service we are entitled to at the basic cost.
	I am a fan of free enterprise. If there is an opportunity for an entrepreneur to make a living and it is a legal activity, I wish him good luck and every encouragement. If there is a genuine need for help to fill in Government forms because they are so unfathomably complex and a website advertises itself as providing a service where one is needed—which could of course include payment
	by PayPal—with ample disclaimers and no attempt to look like the official website, I think it is reasonable that the need be met. If it fills a need, it will be used.
	But these websites depend on two things—winning the search engine optimisation battle and paying for the paid-for clicks, and for the consumer to think that they have found the official website they are looking for. The solution could be very simple indeed. In the first instance, it seems perfectly reasonable for the Government to come to an agreement with the search engine providers to ensure that if there is a service being searched with responses that have .gov.uk suffix, that website is placed right at the top of the search results in the No. 1 slot and at the head of the paid-for ad slot. In that way, every search will present the genuine official website first and the consumer will not find themselves being led to a wrong or a bogus site. Indeed, the search engines have already made headway on this. I spent a bit of time this afternoon checking and the .gov.uk sites seem to be at the top of the unpaid-for ads, but they are still in the fourth slot.
	Should this problem persist and these bogus or dubious websites continue, it seems reasonable that a value test be put against these sites. If the site can prove that it is doing a reasonable and useful job, it should be allowed to compete against the Government on a service basis. After all, if people feel they need to spend the extra money to unravel a complex form or to pay using PayPal, it is important that the Government receive the message that they need to up their game in the service they are providing. But it is desirable for the Government to strive to provide an exemplary service to taxpayers in closing the opportunity to alternative providers of Government services. But should this problem persist and we continue to see people being duped into using these sites, even after the Government have done everything they can to reduce any chance of a value proposition for these misleading websites, surely a well policed outright ban must be considered.
	We are well into the internet age and, as we develop the service that has now become a basic necessity of life, it is right that we should question and push back against some of the more unsavoury and opportunistic parts of the internet. Search engines are doing their bit, but it is vital that the Government should protect consumers from cynical and unscrupulous attempts to turn a profit while they are attempting to use services that are ours anyway. I am grateful to the Minister for his attention this late in the evening, and I look forward to hearing his comments on how we can resolve the problem.

Nick Hurd: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is wonderful to see you in the Chair, and I should like to add my name to the long list of people who have stepped up to say the same thing today.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing the debate and on the way in which he presented his argument. I thought he was rather self-effacing about the importance of the debate. This is one of the better attended Adjournment debates that I have taken part in, and the keen interest of Radio Hereford and Worcester has also been noted. This is an issue that strikes a chord; none of us wants to
	see our constituents being ripped off. He powerfully highlighted the difficulties, and in some cases the distress, that some users of online services have experienced as a result of the activities of some third-party websites providing access to Government services, often at a significant mark-up while providing little or no additional value.
	This is an important issue, and it becomes even more important because of its context. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are extremely ambitious to deliver more services online and to encourage more of our citizens and constituents to access services in that way, as set out in the Government’s digital strategy. Quite simply, we want the public to receive services that are simple, fast and clear and that can be accessed easily at times and in ways that suit them. We want to take full advantage of the digital opportunities. It will also please colleagues to hear that this will allow us to produce better services at a much lower cost. It is worth placing on record that the Government saved £500 million last year on digital and technology-related expenditure while making improvements to how people access information and services.
	There is much to celebrate in the progress that we are making in building world-class digital services in this country, and we are ambitious to work with the private sector and civil society to help the 11 million people in the UK who are still digitally excluded to get online and close that gap. Given that context, and that ambition, it is really important that we should not allow fraud to undermine the trust in, and integrity of, the systems and services that we are presenting. Concerns about security and the potential for identity theft, confusion about which websites are trustworthy and fears about being ripped off all act as deterrents to the take-up of digital services, so this does matter to us and I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the issue to the House’s attention.
	The abuse of access to Government services can take a range of forms, all of which can have a negative impact on confidence. They include: brand abuse, in which Government logos are used to imply affiliation with, or endorsement by, the Government or their agencies; phishing, when attempts are made to acquire information such as usernames, passwords, credit card details and other useful personal information by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication; and levying additional charges for access via third-party websites to Government services that are, in some cases, normally free. The justification for those charges are so-called additional services that in fact offer little or no additional value.
	What are we doing about it? When we have discovered —or when the public have highlighted—the misuse of Government logos, we have ensured that they are removed from the offending sites. I am pleased to say that we have seen a significant drop in the number of reports of such misuse. However, reports relating to phishing and to third-party websites levying additional charges for access to Government websites have not fallen in the same way.
	Obviously, some Government services are more impacted by this problem than others. Services that tend to involve one-off transactions, or those that citizens and businesses use only infrequently, tend to be the ones that third-party websites offer access to. Such services include passport and driving licence applications and the booking of
	driving tests. We are taking steps to deal with these issues, but there have been some challenges that I should like to share with the House.
	The first complication is that the infrequency of use means that users of services provided by central Government Departments and their agencies are not necessarily familiar with the look and feel of those services online. The wide demographic base of the users of those services also limits the impact of a broad-based communication and education approach, in itself an expensive proposition. That does not make the problem insurmountable, nor does it mean that education about the best way to access Government services should not be part of our approach to tackling the problem. However, it does mean that we should seek creative ways of doing that, such as through the use of partners in the private and civil society sectors.
	The second complication is the difficulty we have in categorising the activities of some of the websites we have been discussing as bad or misleading. In 2012, as my hon. Friend will know, the Office of Fair Trading conducted an investigation into the online commercial practices relating to Government services and concluded that it was not appropriate to take formal enforcement action. The investigation did not reveal widespread attempts by non-Government websites to misrepresent their affiliation with Government. Moreover, the OFT was of the view that the overall depiction of the sites investigated, including branding, colouring and images, did not create a misleading impression that they were official Government websites. In particular, many of the sites carried statements explaining the nature of the service provided and disclaiming any official status or affiliation with the Government.
	Most of the sites subject to the complaints to which my hon. Friend referred tend to be those that, as he said, feature in search engine-sponsored ad spots. Search engines tend to highlight and prominently display such ads above the search results that are most relevant to the search terms that have been used and in general Government services that are accessible via gov.uk, the new single Government website for all information and services, top the list of relevant search results on the main search engine websites.
	What are the Government doing about misleading third-party websites? The OFT’s findings and the means by which such sites promote their offerings bring us back to the subject of education and how we help users of our services to spot correctly when they are on a Government website or the site of a third party. How do we ensure that citizens and businesses enjoy the benefits and additional value that competition through third-party provision of access to Government services can bring without fear of being exploited? We want to encourage that.

Damian Hinds: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Hurd: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to give proper time to the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest.
	We feel that similarity in the look and feel of Government services will help our efforts to educate users and we are achieving that through the transition of departmental websites as well as those of most of their agencies on to gov.uk. A unique typeface font in used on that site and mimicry of that font by non-Government sites will be difficult.
	We do not think at this stage that legislation is the way to resolve the issue. Any action we take should be evidence-driven and the number of complaints we receive at the moment represent a small fraction of the total number of service users. That does not mean that we should be complacent, but it means that any action we take should be proportionate. Frankly, we need more information about how and why people use the third-party sites. At present, we have no evidence that they have all been misled. That could be the result of under-reporting, but we must also leave room for the possibility that it is not.
	We do not as a Government have a single clear view of the scale of the problem of third-party sites mis-selling Government services and until recently there has been little consistency in how the Government have recorded and monitored details of complaints about the issue. The situation cannot continue, so my officials in the Government Digital Service have proposed, and Departments have agreed to, a cross-Government approach to tackling and tracking the problem. That will result in a clearer view of the scale of the issue, which currently appears to affect a small proportion of service users. Further action will depend on the scale and seriousness of the problems reported. That will also guide our engagement with the search engines on their enforcement of the terms and conditions that are supposed to guide the use of their sponsored ad slots.
	I am pleased to say that in other areas we are making more headway. On phishing, the clear illegality of the behaviour has meant a more clear-cut approach to tackling the problem. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, for example, has a robust system in place to find and shut down rogue sites engaged in phishing activity. In 2011-12, HMRC shut down 841 rogue sites and in 2012-13, it shut down 560. Additionally, the HMRC digital services security team has undertaken a cross-cutting exercise to assist Department for Work and Pensions colleagues in developing the Department’s anti-phishing capabilities by providing training and process maps for dealing with such work.
	I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has thrown a spotlight on the issue. There is clearly a lot of work still to be done, but I very much welcome the insights and challenges that debates such as this provide to help us to make sure that as many citizens as possible enjoy and trust the benefits of digital Government services.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.